Learning from Leadership Project
Investigating the Links to
Improved Student Learning
Final report of Research Findings
Karen Seashore Louis
University of Minnesota
Center for Applied Research
and Educational Improvement
University of Toronto
Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education
z
Kenneth Leithwood
Commissioned by
The Wallace Foundation
z
Kyla L. Wahlstrom
z
Stephen E. Anderson
Copyright © 2010
Learning from Leadership:
Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning
Final Report of Research to the Wallace Foundation
University of Minnesota
Karen Seashore Louis
Kyla L. Wahlstrom
Michael Michlin
Molly Gordon
Emanda Thomas
University of Toronto
Kenneth Leithwood
Stephen E. Anderson
Blair Mascall
Tiiu Strauss
Shawn Moore
July 2010
Financial support for this research was provided by a generous grant from the Wallace Foundation.
The findings, conclusions and recommendations herein are those of the authors and do not represent
the official positions or policies of the funder or of the educational institutions of the researchers.
Copyright ©2010 by the University of Minnesota.® All rights reserved.
About the Organizations
The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the
University of Minnesota links empirical research to real-world applications for
educational leaders in Minnesota and across the United States. To do so, CAREI
conducts comprehensive studies that provide information about challenges confronting
schools and practices leading to educational improvement. For information on our
technical reports and resources, please visit our Web site: www.cehd.umn.edu/CAREI/
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto (OISE/UT) is
the largest professional school of education in Canada and among the largest in the
world. It offers initial teacher education, continuing education, and graduate programs, all
sustained by faculty who are involved in research across the spectrum of issues connected
with learning. Please visit our Web site for more information: www.oise.utoronto.ca
The Wallace Foundation seeks to support and share effective ideas and practices that expand
learning and enrichment opportunities for all people. Its three current objectives are:
• Strengthen education leadership to improve student achievement
• Enhance out-of-school learning opportunities
• Expand participation in arts and culture
For more information and research on these and other related topics, please visit our
Knowledge Center at www.wallacefoundation.org.
2
Acknowledgments
Without the careful reviews and long-standing support of our Wallace Foundation
project officers, Dr. Mary Mattis and Dr. Edward Pauly, this report would not be the thorough
and comprehensive document that has been produced. We value, in particular, all of the
feedback that Mary gave us as we moved into our analysis phase, and her skill at creating
consensus about what was needed, from both the perspective of the Wallace Foundation and
from among the members of our research team.
Our study is strong and comprehensive due to the incredible generosity of over a
thousand educators and policy-makers who participated. We extend heartfelt thanks to the
superintendents, principals, district administrators, teachers, school board and community
members, and state leaders in education who welcomed us into their busy work lives,
providing time to talk with us, to observe in classrooms, and to complete surveys, all of
which gave us the most complete national data set ever assembled to better understand
issues in educational leadership. Your anonymous contributions will be forever giving
back, as leaders use this information to initiate and guide changes in our schools.
This document would still be hidden somewhere in our computers if it were not for
Gabrielle de Montmollin, whose editorial assistance and general ability to keep things rolling
in a large and complex project have been valuable assets since this project began in 2003. A
number of people who are not primary authors of this report made substantial contributions in
a number of ways. At the University of Minnesota a very special thanks goes to Judy Meath
who coordinated all survey data collection activities, all transcription oversight, and who was
frequently a team leader for site visits. Dr. Beverly Dretzke provided excellent and thoughtful
work in conducting path analyses of our data. Additional support from Dr. Judy Hornbacher
and Diane Cirksena, with their grounded knowledge for on-site data collection, was
invaluable. Graduate research assistants at the University of Minnesota have been essential
partners as well in the data collection and analysis activities, including Sarah Berman-Young,
Chad Schmidt, Monica Jacob, and Sarah Frederickson. Andrea Peterson provided excellent
administrative and technical support for a myriad of clerical and computer-related tasks
throughout the entire project. At the University of Toronto, Dr. Suzanne Stiegelbauer played a
substantial role in site-visit data collection and analysis in Texas and New Mexico. Doris
Jantzi, Robin Sacks, and Jing Ping Sun contributed significantly to the analysis of our survey
results. We are also grateful to professor Stephen Jacobson (SUNY) for his help with firstround site visits in New York. Finally, successful execution of the site visits would not have
possible without the assistance of several research assistants from the University of Toronto,
including Leanne Foster, Carol Brayman, Carol Slater, and Joelle Rodway Macri. In the end,
we produced a long and scholarly document, which was ably edited by Dr. Richard Western.
From start to finish, this project has been about teamwork. We have been researching
leadership, and the authors want to acknowledge the incredible effort that all have given in
leading this journey. As a team, we have shared our wisdom, skills, and voices, with each
person stepping forward when such leadership was most needed. We have grown in
knowledge of ourselves and within our discipline. In the end, our deepest thanks goes to The
Wallace Foundation for supporting us in this monumental work.
3
4
Contents
Starting Points ................................................................................................................................7
Part One: What School Leaders Do to Improve Student Achievement .................................16
Preface ........................................................................................................................................16
1.1 Collective Leadership Effects on Teachers and Students ....................................................19
1.2 Shared Leadership: Effects on Teachers and Students of Principals and
Teachers Leading Together .......................................................................................................37
1.3 Patterns of Distributed Leadership by Principals: Sources, Beliefs, Interactions, and
Influences……………………………… ...................................................................................54
1.4 Leadership Practices Considered Instructionally Helpful by High Performing
Principals and Teachers .............................................................................................................66
1.5 Instructional Leadership: Elementary vs. Secondary Principal and Teacher
Interactions and Student Outcomes ...........................................................................................77
1.6 Poverty, Size, Level and Location: The Influence of Context Variables on What
Leaders Do and What They Accomplish ..................................................................................94
1.7 A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice about School Leadership ................103
Part Two: Districts and Their Leaders: How They Foster School Improvement
and Student Learning ...............................................................................................................105
Preface ......................................................................................................................................105
2.1 How Districts Harness Family and Community Energies for School Improvement ........107
2.2 Principals‘ Efficacy: A Key to District Effects on Schools and Students ..........................127
2.3 How Districts Build Principals‘ Sense of Efficacy for School Improvement ....................148
2.4 Ensuring Productive Leadership Succession .....................................................................165
2.5 Data Use in Districts and Schools: Findings and Limitations ...........................................179
2.6 District Approaches to Improving Teaching and Learning ...............................................197
2.7 A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice about District Leadership ...............215
Part Three: State Leadership and Relationships with Districts ...........................................218
Preface ......................................................................................................................................218
3.1 State Political Cultures and Policy Leadership .................................................................220
3.2 The Changing Leadership Role of State Education Agencies ...........................................231
3.3 District and School Responses to State Leadership ..........................................................246
3.4 State Leadership for School Improvement: A Synthesis of Implications for
Policy and Practice ..................................................................................................................279
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................282
References ..................................................................................................................................285
Appendices .................................................................................................................................309
5
6
Starting Points
Purposes for the Study
Education is widely held to be crucial for the survival and success of individuals
and countries in the emerging global environment. U.S. politicians of all stripes have
placed education at the center of their political platforms, and education has been at the
center of many European and Asian policy agendas. Comparable agreement is also
evident about the contributions of leadership to the implementation of virtually all
initiatives aimed at improving student learning and the quality of schools. It is therefore
difficult to imagine a focus for research with greater social justification than research
about successful educational leadership. That was the broad focus for this six-year study
funded by the Wallace Foundation: to identify the nature of successful educational
leadership and to better understand how such leadership can improve educational
practices and student learning.
More specifically, we sought to do the following:

Identify state, district, and school leadership practices that directly or indirectly foster
the improvement of educational practices and student learning.

Clarify how successful leadership practices directly and indirectly influence the
quality of teaching and learning.

Determine the extent to which individuals and groups at state, district, school, and
classroom levels possess the will and skill required to improve student learning, and
the extent to which their work settings allow and encourage them to act on those
capacities and motivations.

Describe the ways in which, and the success with which, individuals and groups at the
state, district, school, and classroom levels help others to acquire the will and skill
required to improve student learning.

Identify the leadership and workplace characteristics of districts and schools that
encourage the values, capacities, and use of practices that improve student learning.
The Educational Leadership Effect
Although leadership is widely thought to be a powerful force for school
effectiveness, this popular belief needs to be justified by empirical evidence. There are
five types of such evidence, each offering its own estimate of the size of leader effects.
One type is evidence from qualitative case studies. Studies providing this type of
evidence typically are conducted in exceptional school settings, selected as exemplars of
effectiveness.1 Some such studies report large leadership effects—on student learning and
on an array of school conditions. Other qualitative studies focus on ―typical‖ schools
1
See, e.g., Gezi (1990); Reitzug & Patterson (1998).
7
rather than outliers; these studies often produce complex pictures of how leadership
operates in different settings.2 Many educators and scholars find the descriptions
provided by case studies to be interesting and informative. But descriptions of a small
number of cases do not yield explanations of leadership effects for a more general
population of schools.3
The second type of evidence derives from large-scale quantitative studies of
leadership effects on schools and students. Evidence of this type, as reported and
reviewed since about 1980,4 suggests that the direct and indirect effects of school
leadership on student learning are small but significant. Leadership explains five to seven
percent of the variation in student learning across schools (not to be confused with the
very large within-school effects that are likely). Five to seven percent, however, is about
one quarter of the total across-school variation (12 to 20 percent) explained by all schoollevel variables, after controlling for student intake or background factors.5 (Classroom
factors explain more than a third of the variation.) To date, however, research of this sort
has done little to clarify how leaders achieve the effects in question, and its implications
for leadership practice are, therefore, limited.
A third type of evidence derives from studies (also large-scale and quantitative)
focused on the effects of specific leadership practices. Some evidence of this sort can be
found in the research briefly summarized above. But a meta-analysis conducted by
Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003) extends our understanding of the explanatory
potential of this type of research. Waters et al. identify 21 leadership ―responsibilities‖
(behaviors); then they calculate an average correlation between each responsibility and
the measures of student learning used in the original studies. From these data they
calculate estimated effects of the respective responsibilities on student test scores. For
example: there would be a 10 percentile point increase in student test scores resulting
from the work of an average principal if she improved her ―demonstrated abilities in all
21 responsibilities by one standard deviation‖ (2003, p. 3). Extending this line of inquiry,
Marzano et al. (2005) provide a comparable analysis of research on district-level
leadership, identifying five broad categories of superintendent leadership.
A fourth type of evidence derives from studies of leadership effects on student
engagement, as distinct from effects on student learning. Some evidence suggests that
student engagement is a strong predictor of student learning.6 Recently, at least 10 largescale, quantitative studies, similar in design, have assessed the effects of leadership
behavior on student engagement; all have reported significant positive effects.7
2
Spillane, Diamond, & Burch et al. (2002).
See, e.g., Mortimore (1993), and Scheurich (1998).
4
See, e.g., Hallinger & Heck (1996b); Leithwood & Jantzi (2005); Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005);
and Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe (2008).
5
Creemers & Reetzig (1996), and Townsend (1994).
6
See Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris (2004) for a review, especially at p. 70.
7
Leithwood & Jantzi (1999a, 1999b); Leithwood et al. (2004a); Silins & Mulford (2002b); and Silins,
Mulford, & Zarins (2002).
3
8
Finally, a different but quite compelling sort of evidence about leadership effects
derives from research on leadership succession. Unplanned principal succession, for
example, is a common source of adverse effects on school performance, regardless of
what teachers might do. Studies by Macmillan (2000) and Fink & Brayman (2006)
demonstrate the devastating effects of rapid principal succession, especially on initiatives
intended to increase student learning. And rapid succession is very common. Clearly,
leadership matters.
In developing a starting point for this six-year study, we claimed, based on a
preliminary review of research,8 that leadership is second only to classroom instruction as
an influence on student learning, After six additional years of research, we are even more
confident about this claim. To date we have not found a single case of a school improving
its student achievement record in the absence of talented leadership. Why is leadership
crucial? One explanation is that leaders have the potential to unleash latent capacities in
organizations. Put somewhat differently: most school variables, considered separately,
have only small effects on student learning9. To obtain large effects, educators need to
create synergy across the relevant variables. Among all the parents, teachers, and policy
makers who work hard to improve education, educators in leadership positions are
uniquely well positioned to ensure the necessary synergy.
Meanings of Leadership
Leadership can be described by reference to two core functions. One function is
providing direction; the other is exercising influence. Whatever else leaders do, they
provide direction and exercise influence. This does not imply oversimplification. Each of
these two leadership functions can be carried out in different ways, and the various
modes of practice linked to the functions distinguish many ―models‖ of leadership.
In carrying out these two functions, leaders act in environments marked variously
by stability and change. These conditions interact in complementary relationships.
While stability is often associated with resistance and maintenance of the status quo, it is
in fact difficult for leaders and other educators to leap forward from a wobbly foundation.
To be more precise, it is stability and improvement that have this symbiotic relationship.
Leaping forward from a wobbly foundation may well produce change, but not change of
the sort that most of us value—falling flat on your face is the image that comes to mind.
Wobbly foundations and unwise leaping help to explain why the blizzard of changes
adopted by our schools over the past half century have had little effect on the success of
our students. School reform efforts have been most successful in those schools that have
needed them least.10 These have been schools with well-established processes and
capacities in place, providing foundations on which to build—in contrast to those
schools, the ones most often of concern to reformers, short on essential infrastructure.
How do these concepts come together in a clarification of leadership? Leadership
is all about organizational improvement; more specifically, it is about establishing
8
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom (2004)
Creemers & Reetzigt, 1996
10
Elmore (1995)
9
9
agreed-upon and worthwhile directions for the organization in question, and doing
whatever it takes to prod and support people to move in those directions. Our general
definition of leadership highlights these points: it is about direction and influence.
Stability is the goal of what is often called management. Improvement is the goal of
leadership. But both are very important. One of the most serious threats to stability in a
school district is frequent turnover in the ranks of superintendents, principals, and vice
principals. Instability at the school level often reflects a failure of management at the
district level.
Alternative Models of Leadership Reflected in the Literature
Leadership in non-school contexts. Research on leadership in non-school contexts is
frequently driven by theory referred to by one of our colleagues as ―adjectival leadership
models.‖ A recent review of such theory identified, for example, 21 leadership
approaches that have been objects of considerable theoretical and empirical
development.11 Seventeen have been especially attractive, and some of them have
informed research in school contexts.12 Here are some examples.

Contingent leadership. Encompassing research on leadership styles, leader problem
solving, and reflective leadership, this two-dimensional conception of leadership
explains differences in leaders‘ effectiveness by reference to a task or relationship
style and to the situations in which leaders find themselves. To be most effective,
according to this model, leaders must match their styles to their settings.

Participative leadership. Addressing attention to leadership in groups, shared
leadership,13 and teacher leadership,14 this model is concerned with how leaders
involve others in organizational decisions. Research informed by the model has
investigated autocratic, consultative, and collaborative sharing styles.

Transformational and charismatic leadership. This model focuses on ways in which
leaders exercise influence over their colleagues and on the nature of leader-follower
relations. Both forms of leadership emphasize communicating a compelling vision,
conveying high performance expectations, projecting self confidence, modeling
appropriate roles, expressing confidence in followers‘ ability to achieve goals, and
emphasizing collective purpose.15
Leadership in education. Leadership research also has been informed by models
developed specifically for use in school- and district-level settings. Of these, the
instructional leadership model is perhaps the most well known. (It bears some
resemblance to more general, task-oriented leadership theories.16) The instructional
leadership concept implies a focus on classroom practice. Often, however, specific
11
Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau (2005).
Leithwood & Duke (1999).
13
E.g., Pearce & Conger (2003).
14
E.g., York-Barr & Duke (2004).
15
E.g., Leithwood & Jantzi (2006).
16
Dorfman & House (2004).
12
10
leadership practices required to establish and maintain that focus are poorly defined. The
main underlying assumption is that instruction will improve if leaders provide detailed
feedback to teachers, including suggestions for change. It follows that leaders must have
the time, the knowledge, and the consultative skills needed to provide teachers—in all the
relevant grade levels and subject areas—with valid, useful advice about their instructional
practices. While these assumptions have an attractive ring to them, they rest on shaky
ground, at best; the evidence to date suggests that few principals have made the time and
demonstrated the ability to provide high quality instructional feedback to teachers.17
Importantly, the few well-developed models of instructional leadership posit a set of
responsibilities for principals that go well beyond observing and intervening in
classrooms—responsibilities touching on vision, organizational culture, and the like.18
In addition, studies of school leadership are replete with other adjectives purporting to
capture something uniquely important about the object of inquiry—for example, learning
leadership,19 constructivist leadership,20 and change leadership.21 Few of these efforts,
however, have been products of a sustained line of inquiry yielding the sort of evidence
needed to justify their claims. This observation influenced our approach as we began our
study. Eschewing any particular model of leadership, we examined the actual practices,
across models, for which there was significant evidence of desirable effects.
Significant Features of Our Research
The investigation reported here was among the largest of its kind at the time we
conducted it. Its particularly noteworthy features, as against other educational leadership
studies, include the size of the data base, the use of multiple theoretical and
methodological approaches to the research, and the comprehensive sources of leadership
examined.
Size of the data base. We collected data from a wide range of respondents in nine
states, 43 school districts, and 180 elementary, middle, and secondary schools. At the
state level, we conducted interviews with legislators, stakeholders, and members of state
education agencies. In districts, we interviewed senior district leaders, elected board
members, representatives of the media, and other informants. We used survey
instruments and interviews with teachers and administrators, and we conducted
classroom observations with most of the teachers we interviewed. We collected survey
data in the first and fourth years of the study; we conducted interviews in districts and
schools in three cycles over the five years of the project. These efforts yielded, by the end
of the project, survey data from a total of 8,391 teachers and 471 school administrators;
interview data from 581 teachers and administrators, 304 district level informants, and
124 state personnel; and observational data from 312 classrooms. Finally, we obtained
student achievement data for literacy and mathematics in elementary and secondary
grades, using scores on the states‘ tests for measuring Adequate Yearly Progress as
17
E.g., Nelson & Sassi (2005).
Andrews & Soder (1987), Duke (1987), and Hallinger (2003).
19
Reeves (2006).
20
Lambert et al. (1995).
21
E.g., Wagner et al. (2006).
18
11
mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. (For a detailed description of the
data base, see the Methodological Appendix.)
Multiple methodological approaches. We used qualitative and quantitative
methods to gain certain advantages associated with multiple-methods research. The
advantages typically include ―rich opportunities for cross-validating and crossfertilizing…procedures, findings, and theories‖ (Brewer & Hunter, 1989, p. 13). Our
particular use of multiple methods offered opportunities that we had not fully appreciated
in the early stages of our work. These included opportunities to discover significant
patterns and relationships in our quantitative evidence, which we were then able to pursue
in greater depth, thanks to our qualitative evidence. One example appears in Section 2.2.
From the analysis of our first-round survey data we found that one of the most powerful
sources of districts‘ influence on schools and students was through the development of
school leaders‘ collective sense of efficacy about their jobs. With this connection well
established quantitatively, we then mined principal-interview data to learn in greater
detail what districts actually did to develop a sense of efficacy among principals. Similar
examples of this approach to our data can be found in Sections 2.4, 2.5, and (taken as a
whole) Sections 1.1 to 1.3.
Multiple theoretical perspectives. In collecting data and working to make sense of
our results, we drew upon conceptual tools from sociology, socio-psychology, political
science, and organizational theory. Sociological concepts informed our understanding of
shared leadership (1.2), contexts for leadership (1.5), and community engagement (2.1).
Socio-psychological perspectives helped us analyze leader efficacy (2.2) and (along with
organizational theory) the nature of successful leadership practices (1.4), as well as the
use of evidence in districts and schools (2.5), and leader succession (2.4). Political
science concepts framed our research about state leadership (3.1).
Our goal with this seemingly eclectic approach was to draw on the theoretical
perspectives best suited to the question at hand—an approach especially well suited to a
project like ours with multiple principal investigators who had studied and used each
strand of theory in their prior work. We shared the view that using multiple methods and
theoretical perspectives can provide a powerful antidote to the unintended self-deceptions
that sometimes arise from the use of more unitary approaches. Our approach, however,
also challenged us to develop a valid and coherent storyline from the data. In that effort,
inevitably, we have sacrificed some measure of coherence in order to present a rich
account of our findings.
Comprehensiveness of sources of leadership. Most leadership studies in
education focus on a single institutional role. The bulk of it focuses on the principals‘
role,22 with a growing but still modest body of attention to district-level leadership.23
Over the past decade, researchers have also begun to study leadership provided by
teachers.24
22
E.g., Robinson et al. (2008).
Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005).
24
York-Barr & Duke (2004).
23
12
The recent flurry of attention to a broader spectrum or distribution of leadership
has begun to sensitize us to the remarkable array of people who exercise formal or
informal leadership in schools and districts. Research of this sort also shows that the
influence of leadership on organizational outcomes arises from the behaviors of these
various people acting as leaders in either an ―additive‖ or ―holistic‖ manner (Gronn,
2009. We cannot push our understanding of leadership influence much further without
considering the many sources of leadership in the education system and also the web of
interaction created by these sources. To date, our study is one of only a few to have
examined leadership at each organizational level in the school system as a whole—state,
district, school, classroom, and community.
The comprehensive approach reminds us that every leader is at the same time
constrained and enabled in some measure by the actions of others (including other
leaders), and by the consequences of those actions. Without a better understanding of
such antecedents and consequences, we are left with an impoverished appreciation of
why leaders behave as they do. Invoking social theory, the more comprehensive
perspective has the potential to shift the field of educational leadership research from a
dominant preoccupation with ―agency‖ (explaining leaders‘ behaviors as a function of
individual capacities, motivations, and traits), toward a more balanced understanding of
how the structures within which leaders work also shape the work that they do.
Framework Guiding the Study
The framework guiding our study emerged from a review of scholarship
completed prior to our data collection and summarized in Figure 1.25 According to
information summarized in this figure, features of state and district policies, practices,
and other characteristics interact with one another and exert an influence on what school
leaders do. These features also influence conditions in schools, classrooms, and the
professional community of teachers (for the sake of simplicity, we do not connect these
variables in Figure 1). Other stakeholder groups, including the media, unions,
professional associations, and community and business groups also influence school
leadership practices. And of course leaders are influenced by their own professional
learning experiences and by student and family backgrounds.
25
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom (2004).
13
State
Leadership,
Policies and
Practices
District
Leadership,
Policies and
Practices
Leaders’
Professional
Development
Experiences
Student/ Family
Background
School
Leadership
Other
Stakeholders
School
Conditions
Teachers
Student
Learning
Classroom
Conditions
Figure 1. Leadership Influences on Student Learning
School leadership, from formal and informal sources, helps to shape school
conditions (including, for example, goals, culture, and structures) and classroom
conditions (including the content of instruction, the size of classrooms, and the pedagogy
used by teachers). Many factors within and outside schools and classrooms help to shape
teachers‘ sense of professional community. School and classroom conditions, teachers‘
professional communities, and student/family background conditions are directly
responsible for the learning of students.
Overview of the Report
The six-year study reported here focuses on leadership at the school, district, and
state levels. The report is organized in three main parts, with one part dedicated to each
leadership level. Within each part (following a preface) there are three to six sections
describing the results of sub-studies conducted within the larger project, in pursuit of
specific research goals.
Each section begins with an overview of the significant findings for that particular
sub-study. We chose to provide the Key Findings at the beginning as a way to orient the
reader‘s attention to the details that follow. Also, each section concludes with
―Implications for Policy and Practice‖. Again, we wanted to direct the reader‘s thinking
to what could or should be done in schools and districts to support or improve reform
efforts. Our assertions for changes in policy and practice, as based on our findings, are
not intended to be definitive, but rather as a starting place for the reader.
Part One focuses on school-level leadership. It summarizes three perspectives on
the sources and distribution of school-level leadership practices; it identifies effects on
14
students and features of the school that influence the size of those effects; and it describes
successful leadership practices.
Part Two focuses on school district leadership. It describes ways in which districts
engage parents and the community in their school-improvement efforts; it explores the
impact of such engagement on students; it tells how districts develop school leaders‘
sense of efficacy; it explains what districts can do to ensure productive leader succession;
and it describes ways in which typical and exemplary districts use school data. One
section of Part Two paints a broad and integrated picture of district approaches to
improving teaching and learning.
Part Three focuses on state-level leadership. Three sections describe variations in
the forms of leadership exercised by states through the development and implementation
of education policy. A fourth section describes the leadership provided by state education
agencies and the quite different relationship districts develop with their states.
15
Part One
What School Leaders Do to Improve Student Achievement
Preface
With its focus on school-level leadership, Part One seeks to identify, elaborate,
and clarify existing knowledge about successful leadership practices. Because leadership
is enacted by many people in schools, we begin by addressing the nature, causes, and
consequences of the alternative forms and patterns of leadership among school and
district staff members. Our evidence about leadership distribution contributes to an
ongoing conversation among researchers and practitioners aimed at determining
implications for school improvement.26
To obtain evidence about leadership distribution and its effects, we conducted our
examination through the use of distinctly different lenses. Our observations made by way
of these lenses yield a richer understanding of leadership distribution than we could have
attained via a narrower approach.
Section 1.1 is concerned with the influence various stakeholders (parents and
other community members, for example) may have on school decisions. Our work in this
section has some bearing on the definition of leadership. Many texts describe leadership
as an ambiguous, evolving concept, yet to be clearly defined.27 Indeed, Stogdill argued
many years ago that ―there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are
persons who have attempted to define the concept‖ (1974, p. 259). Our own reading
suggests, however, that Yukl is correct in claiming that almost all definitions assume
leadership entails at least some form of social influence which might be ―viewed as a
property of an individual or a property of a social system‖ (1994, p. 3). Collective
leadership, for our purposes, is defined by this minimalist but basic conception of
leadership-as-influence—and as a property of the system rather than an individual.
Evidence about collective leadership reported in Section 1.1 reveals the extent of
influence exercised by most stakeholders in and around schools on decisions in the
school. This section also indicates that there is considerable variation across schools in
the nature and extent of stakeholders‘ influence, and it suggests that student achievement
benefits from relatively greater influence by all stakeholders in school decisions.
Section 1.2 adopts a ―shared‖ conception of distributed leadership, one typically
reflecting a group- or team-level approach in which all members share responsibility for
leading contingent upon the task, the time required, and the expertise needed.28 In their
recent text on shared leadership, Pearce and Conger (2003) trace the roots of this
conception to two early studies. The first of these (Follett, 1924) essentially advocated
26
Comprehensive overviews of this research can be found in Harris (2009), and Leithwood, Harris &
Hopkins (2008), for example.
27
E.g., Rost (1991).
28
Yammarino et al. (2005).
16
leadership through expert rather than positional power, whereas the second (Bowers &
Seashore, 1966) provided evidence that peer sources of leadership in large organizations
could have significant effects on organizational outcomes.
We stipulated a narrower conception of shared leadership for the research
reported in Section 1.2. This conception is oriented toward shared and contingent
responsibility, but it focuses on leadership exercised by those most directly responsible
for student learning—principals and teachers. Section 1.2 examines the effects on
students of principals and teachers assuming shared responsibility for leadership; it also
identifies some conditions that influence the emergence and mediate the effects of this
approach to leadership in schools.
The examination of distributed leadership in Section 1.3 introduces explicit
leadership practices. By reference to a qualitative data set, this section discloses who
enacts which practices, how different patterns of leadership enactment emerge, and
whether variation in such patterns makes a difference for schools and students. Viewed
from a principal‘s perspective, this research also suggests implications for how leadership
might be distributed more productively in schools.
Sections 1.4 and 1.5 identify the actual practices or behaviors, however
distributed, giving rise to leadership influence on teaching and learning. Both sections
report the perceptions of principals and teachers, selected according to quite different
criteria, about the leadership practices they believe are helpful in improving classroom
instruction. Section 1.4 is informed by a synthesis of results from a body of prior
evidence about leadership practices demonstrably successful across organizational sectors
and national cultures.29 Using qualitative evidence from principals and teachers, this
section assesses the relevance of these practices across different school contexts and
provides greater detail about how they are enacted in those contexts.
In Section 1.5, we take an additional step in our efforts to identify productive
leadership practices. We adopt a grounded-theory approach to a different set of data, also
collected from principals and teachers. This sub-study distinguishes between efforts by
school leaders to create a vision and climate among staff members, on the one hand, and,
on the other, the actions leaders take to realize that vision. Together, Sections 1.4 and 1.5
offer a detailed account of the leadership behaviors deemed by those closest to the action
to be influential in shaping teachers‘ work with students. These sections also point to
substantial differences in the extent to which these actions are enacted by formal leaders
in elementary as compared to secondary schools.
Section 1.6, building on analyses from the previous two sections, demonstrates
that leaders, to be successful, need to be highly sensitive to the contexts in which they
work. From one perspective, such contexts moderate (enhance or mute) the influence of
any given set of leadership practices. From a more practical perspective, different
29
For example, see Leithwood et al. (2006); Robinson et al. (2008); and Waters et al. (2003).
17
contexts call for quite different enactments of the same basic set of successful leadership
practices.
Section 1.7 synthesizes implications for policy and practice arising from the six
sections in Part One.
18
1.1
Collective Leadership Effects on Teachers and Students
Key Findings

Collective leadership has a stronger influence on student achievement than
individual leadership.

Almost all people associated with high-performing schools have greater influence
on school decisions than is the case with people in low-performing schools.

Higher-performing schools award greater influence to teacher teams, parents, and
students, in particular.

Principals and district leaders have the most influence on decisions in all schools;
however, they do not lose influence as others gain influence.

Schools leaders have an impact on student achievement primarily through their
influence on teachers‘ motivation and working conditions; their influence on
teachers‘ knowledge and skills produces less impact on student achievement.
Introduction
Collective leadership, as the term is used in this component of our study, refers to
the extent of influence that organizational members and stakeholders exert on decisions
in their schools. This relatively narrow but fundamental perspective on leadership focuses
attention on the combined effects of all sources of leadership, along with possible
differences in the contributions made by each of these sources (e.g., administrators,
teachers, students, parents). Guided by this conception of leadership, the sub-study set out
to estimate the following:

the relative influence on school decision making of each of the individuals or groups
potentially contributing to a school‘s collective leadership;

the impact of collective leadership on teacher feelings and beliefs and on student
learning; and

whether differences in the extent of influence exerted by the respective participants is
related to differences in levels of student achievement.
19
Prior Evidence
Leadership as Influence
The conception of collective leadership used for this study overlaps with Rowan‘s
conception of organic management, defined as follows:30
a shift away from conventional, hierarchical patterns of bureaucratic
control toward what has been referred to as a network pattern of control,
that is, a pattern of control in which line employees are actively involved
in [making] organizational decision[s,] [and] staff cooperation and
collegiality supplant the hierarchy as a means of coordinating work flows
and resolving technical difficulties. (Miller & Rowan, 2006, p. 219-220)
Conceptualizing collective leadership as a network of influence and control also
locates our study in relation to other research about organizational control structures. A
seminal paper by Tannenbaum (1961), for example, introduced the ―control graph‖ as a
means of displaying patterns of control in formal organizations. The horizontal axis of a
control graph designates each of the ―levels‖ (designated positions) in the organization,
while the vertical axis represents the degree of perceived influence or control exercised at
each level. Tannenbaum used the control graph to illustrate four prototypical control
modes or approaches to leadership: autocratic (influence rises with the hierarchical level
of the role), democratic (higher levels of influence are ascribed to those in hierarchically
lower levels or roles), anarchic (relatively little influence by any level or role), and
polyarchic (high levels of influence by all levels or roles). Reflecting Rowan‘s (1990)
expectations for organic management under conditions of uncertainty, Tannenbaum also
hypothesized that organizational effectiveness will be related to: (a) more democratic,
and (b) more polyarchic forms of control.
The first of these hypotheses arises from two sets of expectations. First, more
democratic forms of control will be more consistent with employees‘ beliefs and values
in a democratic society and contribute to higher levels of job satisfaction and morale,
whereas autocratic forms of control are expected ―to reduce initiative, inhibit
identification with the organization and to create conflict and hostility among members‖
(Tannenbaum, 1961, p. 35). Second, more control by those lower in the hierarchy will
lead to greater acceptance of jointly-made decisions along with an increased sense of
responsibility for and motivation to accomplish organizational goals. Such participation
may also contribute to more effective coordination through mutual influence
mechanisms.
The second of Tannenbaum‘s hypotheses, sometimes called the ―power
equalization‖ hypothesis, is justified, Tannenbaum claims, by certain results—by
improved organizational efficiency realized when more control is exercised by those
lower in the hierarchy, and by improved motivation and identification with the
organization on the part of those whose power is enhanced. Reasons offered in the
30
Miller & Rowan (2006); Rowan (1990).
20
current literature about distributed leadership are quite similar to the justification
Tannenbaum‘s offers for his two hypotheses.
Collective Leadership Effects
What evidence is there to show that democratic, supportive, and shared forms of
leadership are effective? Some empirical evidence may be found in research on teacher
participation with peers in planning and decision making31 and in research on
transformational leadership.32 Several lines of related theory also give rise to expectations
of a positive association between organizational effectiveness and the distribution of
influence, including theories of organizational learning,33 distributed cognition,34 and
communities of practice.35
Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence to the contrary, especially from research
in which organizational effectiveness is defined as the organization‘s bottom line (some
measure of productivity) and assessed using objective indicators, such as student test
scores. Tannenbaum was able to provide only limited support for his hypotheses about
organizational control structures. And after about 15 years of programmatic research
about organic management, Miller and Rowan reported that ―the main effects are weak[,]
and positive effects appear to be contingent on many other conditions‖ (2006, p. 220). A
recent, comprehensive review of research on teacher leadership found only a small
handful of studies in which researchers had actually inquired about effects of teacher
leadership on students, and the results were generally not supportive.36
To date, most research about school leadership has focused on the work of
teachers and school administrators. It is certainly possible, however, to conceive of
people acting in other roles—as parents, students, interested members of the
community—to exercise influence in schools. The work of Pounder, Ogawa and Adams
(1995) provides one example (there are not many) of research that examines leadership
exercised by a broader array of participants. Pounder et al. test a model of the influence
of principals, teachers, parents, and secretaries on a number of mediating variables, as
well as a range of school outcomes, providing a useful model for our approach a decade
later .
The current sub-study looks beyond the school setting in its examination of
leadership. Staff members in district roles also have an obligation to influence what
schools do, although most studies of collective, shared, and distributed leadership have
not examined the contribution of district personnel.37 Our study concerned itself with all
of these potential sources of influence.
31
Talbert & McLaughlin (1993).
Leithwood & Jantzi (2005).
33
Hutchins (1996).
34
Perkins, 1993; Tsoukas (2005).
35
Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002).
36
York-Barr & Duke (2004).
37
But see Firestone (1989), and Firestone & Martinez (2007).
32
21
Antecedents of Teacher Performance
Miller and Rowan (2006) sought to assess certain effects of organic management.
In this effort they did not attend to variables potentially mediating the effects of leaders
on student learning. This is an important limitation, given prior work (Pitner, 1988;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996a) showing that the effects of leadership on students are largely
indirect. Studies designed to explore direct effects of leadership rarely detect significant
effects, whereas many studies of indirect effects do. Most studies since 1996 have been
guided by complex causal models which include a wide array of potential mediators.38
The framework for this sub-study assumed indirect leadership effects and
conceptualized as mediators a set of teacher performance antecedents including
motivation, capacity, and the situations in which people work. These are variables in a
general model of employee performance and how it improves. Our own modification of
this framework is based on theoretical and empirical accounts of the conditions required
for development of motivation and capacity on the part of school people to engage
productively in improvement efforts. Our modification also incorporates accounts of
organizational conditions and characteristics of the infrastructure which facilitate the
successful implementation of large-scale reform, or what van den Berg, Vandenberghe,
and Sleegers (1999) refer to as the organization‘s ―innovative capacity.‖39
New Evidence
Method
Sample. This sub-study is based on data collected in the first round of surveys for
the larger study. The achieved sample included responses by 2,570 teachers (77%
response rate) from a total of 90 schools in which seven or more teachers completed
usable surveys and for which usable student achievement data were available.40 Table
1.1.1 below presents a summary of the characteristics of our achieved sample.
TABLE 1.1.1
Sample School Characteristics
Mean
Student Diversity (1=Low, 3 = High)
1.97
SD
.71
Percent of Students Eligible for Free Lunch
43.82%
27.67
Achievement (Mean % at Proficiency or Above)
67.19%
24.27
38
For example, Leithwood & Levin (2005) and Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom (2004).
For a more detailed explanation of how these variables were defined and measured, see Leithwood &
Jantzi (2008).
40
We were able to generate data on the SES of only 76 of these schools, so the calculations for tables
drawing on SES have been adjusted to use this smaller sample.
39
22
Sources of evidence. To measure student achievement across schools, we
collected data from state websites. These data comprised school-wide results on statemandated tests of language and mathematics at several grade levels over three years
(2003 to 2005). We represented a school‘s level of student achievement by the percentage
of students meeting or exceeding the proficiency level (usually established by the state)
on language and mathematics tests. We averaged these percentages across grades and
subjects in order to increase the stability of scores,41 arriving finally at a single
achievement score for each school for each of three years. Our analysis also included an
achievement change score, calculated as the gain in percentage of students attaining or
exceeding the state-established proficiency level from the first to the third year for which
we had evidence.
Teacher responses to 49 items from a 104-item survey provided the remaining
data for this sub study. The survey, which required about 20 minutes to complete,
measured the collective leadership and teacher-performance antecedents described in our
framework: 9 items measured collective leadership, 9 items measured teacher capacity,
17 items measured teacher motivation, and 14 items measured teacher work settings or
conditions. Each of the nine items used to measure collective leadership pertained to a
single source of influence from a set including district administrators, principals, other
school administrators, some individual teachers, teachers with designated leadership
roles, staff teams, some individual parents, parent advisory groups, and students. About
each source of influence, we asked respondents to rate the extent of direct influence on
school decisions (on a 6-point scale). We also asked respondents to rate the extent to
which they agreed with statements about each of the three antecedents of teacher
performance, also on a 6-point scale.
Analysis. We merged individual responses to the teacher survey, aggregated to
the school level, with school-level student achievement results. We used SPSS to
calculate means, standard deviations, and reliabilities (Cronbach‘s alpha) for scales
measuring the four variables. We used paired-sample t-tests to compare mean ratings of
various sources of leadership. We tested the factor structure of the teacher variables
included in the study. We used hierarchical multiple regression to examine the
moderating effects of student SES on some relationships in our framework. Finally, we
used LISREL to test a model of the relationships among collective leadership, teacher
motivation, capacity and setting, and student achievement. This path-analytic technique
allows for testing the validity of causal inferences for pairs of variables while controlling
for the effects of other variables. We analyzed data using the LISREL 8.80 analysis of
covariance structure approach to path analysis and maximum likelihood estimates.42 We
used four goodness-of-fit statistics to assess the fit of our path model with the data: the
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation test (RMSEA), the Norm-fit index (NFI), the
adjusted Goodness of Fit index (GFI) and the mean Root Mean Square Residual (RMR).
41
42
Linn (2003).
Joreskog & Sorbom (1993).
23
Results
We begin with a summary of responses to the teacher survey and with
information about the statistical properties of our measures, including the results of a
factor analysis of the measures of teacher capacity, motivation, and setting. The
remaining sections report evidence relevant to each of three questions addressed by the
study: the impact of collective leadership on key teacher variables and student learning;
the relative influence of different collective leadership sources; the relationship between
different patterns of collective leadership and student achievement.
Table 1.1.2 reports the internal reliabilities (Cronbach‘s alpha) of the scales used
to measure each of the three antecedents of teacher performance—capacity, motivation
and work setting—and the measure of collective leadership. Overall mean ratings of the
three antecedents are not reported because z-scores had to be calculated to accommodate
the use of different response scales. We calculated variable reliabilities using z-scores.
Responses to all variables ranged between slight agreement and moderate agreement,
with low to moderate standard deviations. All scales achieved acceptable levels of
reliability (between .72 and .96).
TABLE 1.1.2
Scale Reliability for Variables
(N = 90 Schools)
Cronbach‘s Alpha
Capacity
.86
Motivation
.96
Setting
.91
Collective leadership
.72
Note: z-scores were used to calculate the aggregate values for the capacity, motivation, and setting scales.
Collective leadership was calculated from the sum of nine sources of leadership, each rated on a 6-point
scale from ‗no influence‘ to ‗very great influence.‘
Of the 40 items used to measure the three teacher antecedents, 9 measured
capacity, 17 measured motivation, and 14 measured work setting. We analyzed the
dimensionality of these 40 items using principal component factor analysis. We used the
scree test and the interpretability of the factor solution to determine the number of factors
to rotate. We rotated three factors using a Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated
solution yielded three interpretable factors which corresponded very closely with the
three variable categories: capacity, motivation, and setting. The capacity factor accounted
for 14.4% of the item variance; the motivation factor accounted for 13.9% of the item
variance; and the setting factor accounted for 8.6% of the item variance.
Although our initial conception of the three teacher variables suggested a number
of distinct sub-dimensions, these were not supported by the factor analysis. Thus, we
used aggregate scores for each of the three teacher-performance antecedents in all
24
subsequent analyses. Also in response to the results of the factor analysis, we omitted two
of the original items measuring capacity and seven of the items measuring motivation
from subsequent analysis.
Collective Leadership Effects on Teachers and Students
Table 1.1.3 reports correlations among measures of all variables in the study. As
these results indicate, collective leadership is significantly related to all three teacher
variables. The strongest relations are with collective leadership and teachers‘ work setting
(r =.58), followed by teacher motivation (r=.55). All variables but teacher capacity are
significantly related to student achievement: teachers‘ work setting has the strongest
relationship (r = .37), followed by teachers‘ motivation and collective leadership (r= .36
and .34). These data also indicate significant relationships among the teacher variables.
25
TABLE 1.1.3
Relationship between Survey Variables and Student Achievement
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
(N = 90 Schools)
Coll. Lead.
Capacity
1.00
.36**
Collective leadership
1.00
Motivation
Setting
Achievement
.55**
.58**
.34**
.44**
.20
.01
.54**
.36**
Capacity
.36**
Motivation
.55**
.44**
Setting
.58**
.20
.54**
Achievement
.34**
.01
.36**
1.00
1.00
.37**
.37**
1.00
** p < 0.01 level, (2-tailed).
The path model described in Figure 2 (using LISREL) and Table 1.1.4 provides a
further test of relationships among collective leadership, teacher capacity, motivation and
work setting, and student achievement. This model is an excellent fit to the data (RMSEA
= .00; RMR = .03; AGFI = .93; NFI = .99) and, as a whole, explains 20% of the variation
in student achievement. Collective leadership has significant direct effects on all teacher
variables. Its strongest effects are on teachers‘ work setting (r = .58), followed by teacher
capacity (r = .36) and motivation (r = .25). Collective leadership accounts for only 13 %
of the explained variation in teacher capacity.
Capacity
-.17
.36*
.28*
Collective
Leadership
.25*
.58*
.28*
*
Motivation
.30*
.34*
.25*
.28*
.28*
Setting*
Student
Achievement
*
Figure 2. Testing a model of collective leadership effects on student achievement43
43
While a number of iterations of our framework were run, testing relationships in a variety of ways, we
present here only the results that have proved statistically significant. The LISREL model presented has
Chi-square = 1.97, df = 2, p = .37.
26
The paths linking the three teacher variables to student achievement indicate that
collective leadership influences student achievement through teacher motivation and
work setting. The effect of teachers‘ work setting on achievement is significant (.25), but
the effect of teacher capacity is insignificant. Total effects on student achievement are
greatest for work setting, followed by teacher motivation and the indirect influence of
collective leadership. The higher effect for setting is explained by its indirect effect
through motivation, as indicated in the data presented in Table 1.1.4.
Table 1.1.4
Results of Structural Equations Modeling
Variable
Achievement
Residuals
(Explained
Variables)
Total Effect on Achievement
Indirect
Direct
Total
─.17
─.09
.80 (.20)
Capacity
.87 (.13)
Motivation
.56 (.44)
Setting
.66 (.34)
Collective Leadership
.08
.10*
.24*
.30*
.30*
.25*
.35*
.24*
Fit Indices
Root mean square error of approximation
.00
Root mean square residual
.03
Adjusted goodness of fit index
.93
Norm fit index
.99
Note: R2 = .20
* p < .05
In order to estimate the contribution of student SES (calculated as the percentage
of students in a school eligible for free or reduced lunch) to relationships described in the
path model between the three teacher variables and student achievement, we computed
three hierarchical regressions. In each regression equation SES was entered first,
collective leadership second, and one of the teacher variables third.44 Results of these
hierarchical regressions, described in Table 1.1.5, indicate that only motivation explains a
unique and significant proportion of variation in student achievement after controlling for
student SES. Motivation, on its own, explained 6% of the variation in achievement,
whereas setting increased the variation explained by only 1% in combination with SES
and leadership, and capacity decreased the explained variance by the same amount.
44
Readers should note that the order in which variables are added to the model has an influence on the
strength of the relationship. In our analysis, leadership adds 3.6% to the 11.3% explained variance from
SES. Entering collective leadership first explains 9.2%; introducing SES at step 2 provides an additional
5.7% for the same total of 14.9%. If they are entered at the same time, SES explains 6.8%, leadership
explains 4.6%, and their combined effect explains the other 3.5% to the total 14.9%.
27
Table 1.1.5
Results of Hierarchical Regression Measuring Effects of Teacher Capacity,
Teacher Motivation, and Setting on Student Achievement
after Controlling for SES and Collective Leadership
(N = 76 Schools)
R2
Capacity
F
Step 1: Percentage of Students Eligible for Free Lunch (SES)
.11
10.57**
Step 2: Add Collective Leadership
.15
7.55**
Step 3: Add Teacher Capacity
.14
4.99**
Beta
t
Unique R2
─.27
2.39*
Step 3 Significant Unique Effects
SES
R2
Motivation
.06
F
Step 1: Percentage of Students Eligible for Free Lunch
.11
10.57**
Step 2: Add Collective Leadership
.15
7.55**
Step 3: Add Teacher Motivation
.20
7.23**
Beta
t
Unique R2
SES
─.29
2.66*
.07
Motivation
─.29
2.37*
.06
Step 3 Significant Unique Effects
R2
Setting
F
Step 1: Percentage of Students Eligible for Free Lunch
.11
10.57**
Step 2: Add Collective Leadership
.15
7.55**
Step 3: Add Setting
.16
4.60**
Beta
t
Unique R2
─.24
2.04*
Step 3 Significant Unique Effects
SES
.05
In sum, these results indicate the following:

Our model as a whole explains a significant proportion (20%) of variation in student
achievement across schools.

Collective leadership has modest but significant indirect effects on student
achievement.
28

Of the three teacher variables, the influence of collective leadership on students
operates through its influence on teacher motivation and work setting.

While collective leadership does have a significant effect on teacher capacity, this
variable is not significantly linked to student achievement.
These results confirm, in some respects, and contradict, in others, evidence from
two of our earlier studies. One earlier studies incorporated approximately the same
measures used in the present study of teachers‘ capacity, motivation, and work setting.45
Instead of collective leadership, however, that study used a measure of individual leaders‘
transformational practices. In that study, as in the present one, leadership was most
strongly related to teachers‘ work setting and had weaker effects on teacher capacity than
on teacher motivation. This earlier study also reported weaker effects of (likely
individually provided) transformational leadership practices on student achievement as
compared with the effects of collective leadership in the present study. This comparison
of results provides encouragement, at least, for claims about benefits accruing to students
when leadership is more widely distributed in schools.
Our second earlier study also differed in several important respects from the
present study, but it addressed several of the same questions.46 Student engagement rather
than student achievement was used as the dependent variable, and the variables mediating
leaderships‘ influence on students were different from those used in the present study.
The measure of collective leadership, however, was almost identical to the measure used
in the present study. In contrast to the main findings of present study, this earlier study
found non-significant, negative effects of collective leadership on students. This
important difference in results offers at least modest support for the argument that the
choice of mediating variables is a crucial matter in studies of leadership effects on
students.47
The differences we have noted among our three studies might well be accounted
for by non-trivial differences in their designs. To this point, consistency is greatest in
respect to the effects of collective leadership on teachers‘ internal states. Specifically,
collective leadership has so far not been shown to have a demonstrable impact on our
measures of teacher capacity. Also, claims that collective leadership has significant
impact on students have received mixed support. Evidence from other recent studies,
however, seems to provide further support for this claim, although this evidence has been
collected in contexts quite unlike the schools for which we have data. For example,
Hiller, Day and Vance (2006) recently reported significant effects of collective leadership
on supervisor-rated team performance in a road maintenance department. They also
reviewed evidence from six other studies of collective leadership effects on team
effectiveness, concluding that collective leadership is likely to be effective:
45
Leithwood & Jantzi (2006).
Leithwood & Riehl (2005).
47
Hallinger & Heck (2002).
46
29
when teams are engaged in complex tasks that require large amounts of
interdependence, but under more routine conditions…the benefits of
collective leadership have yet to be demonstrated (2006, p. 388).
The Relative Influence of Collective Leadership Sources
To address this issue, we analyzed teachers‘ ratings of the extent of influence on
school decisions of the nine measured sources of collective leadership. Table 1.1.6
reports the mean response of teachers to each source. We calculated paired-samples ttests to estimate the significance of differences in these ratings. As Table 1.1.6 indicates,
principals and district administrators were given the highest, almost identical ratings (M
= 5.30 and 5.28, respectively). The small standard deviations of these ratings indicate
considerable agreement among respondents about the perceived influence of people
acting in these two roles. There is a significant drop in the rating of the next-most
influential role: building-level administrators other than the principal, typically the
assistant principal (M = 4.75).
TABLE 1.1.6
Means and Standard Deviations for Sources of Leadership
Ranked from Least to Most Direct Influence
(N = 90 Schools)
Mean
SD
Students
3.49
.41
Parent Advisory Groups
3.84
.58
Some Individual Parents
3.96
.49
Some Individual Teachers
4.28
.30
Staff Teams (e.g., depts. grade levels)
4.36
.41
Teachers with Designated Leadership Roles
4.43
.37
Other (not principal) Building-level Administrators
4.75
.41
District-level Administrators
5.28
.31
Principals
5.30
.28
4.42
.24
Collective Leadership Aggregate
Rating Scale: 1 = None, 2 = Very Little, 3 = Little, 4 = Some, 5 = Great, 6 = Very Great
Among teacher sources of influence, teachers with designated leadership roles
were perceived to have the strongest influence (M = .4.43), followed by staff teams (M =
4.36) and then some individual teachers (M = 4.28); the ratings of teachers with formal
leadership roles were significantly higher than the ratings of staff teams (t = 3.51, p<.01)
or some individual teachers (t=5.54, p<.001), and the rating of staff teams was
significantly higher than the rating of individual teachers (t=2.19, p<.05).
30
Ratings for parents (some individual parents, and parent advisory groups) were
considerably lower than for teachers, ranging from means of 3.84 to 3.96, a statistically
significant difference (t = 3.16, p<.01). Respondents perceived students to have the
lowest level of direct influence on school decisions (m = 3.49). The very low standard
deviation of ratings for all sources of influence, especially for principals, reduces the
potential strength of relationships with any other variable in our study.
Table 1.1.7 reports the relationships between each of the individual sources of
collective leadership and both teacher variables and student achievement (mean annual
achievement over three years). Among the teacher variables, work setting has a significant
relationship with seven of the nine sources of leadership (not principals or individual
teachers). This surprising result for principals may be a reflection of the low level of
variation in the ratings noted above. The strongest relationship is between motivation and
staff teams (r = .71). Capacity was the only variable significantly related to principal
influence (r=.22); teachers‘ work setting was the only variable related to other building
administrators (r =.32) and district-level administrators (r =.41).
Teachers in formally designated roles were significantly related to all three teacher
variables but not to student achievement. Staff teams, individual parents, parent advisory
groups, and students all have significant relationships with student achievement. Student
leadership is most strongly related to teacher motivation (r =.55). Parent advisory teams are
most strongly related to motivation (r =.44) and achievement (r =.56); individual parents
are most strongly related to achievement (r =.43) and weakly to setting (.34). There appears
to be a differentiation between those leaders who are members of the school staff and those
who are not. Staff teams have stronger relations with all three teacher variables than any of
the other within-school collective leadership sources, and staff teams are the only in-school
source of collective leadership related to achievement (r=.28).
TABLE 1.1.7
Relationship between Sources of Leadership, Mediating Variables, and Achievement
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
(N = 90 Schools)
Capacity
Motivation
Setting
Achievement
Collective leadership
.36**
.55**
.58**
.34**
District Admin.
.04
.13
.41**
.09
Principal
.22*
.20
.12
-.06
.32**
-.11
Other Bldg. Admin.
-.01
-.02
Teachers Formal
.35**
.54**
.34**
.09
Staff teams
.44**
.71**
.44**
.28**
Individual Teachers
.23*
.24**
.17
Individual Parents
.16
.10
.34**
.43**
Parent Advisory
.32**
.44**
.40**
.56**
Students
.17
.55**
.52**
.30**
-.08
31
We were intrigued to see that the two sources of leadership consistently showing
significant relationships with all three mediating variables, and with student achievement,
were collectives: staff teams and parent advisory groups had significant correlations with
all our mediators and with student achievement. In schools with high levels of student
achievement, and high ratings for capacity, motivation, and setting, we are more likely to
see higher levels of influence from staff teams and parent advisory groups. This suggests
that there may be something about the collective nature of these roles which adds to their
influence in the schools.
In sum, our results indicate the following:

School decisions are influenced by a broad array of groups and people, reflecting a
distributed conception of leadership.

The degree of influence exercised by these people and groups reflects a traditional,
hierarchical conception of leadership in organizations. Teachers rate the influence of
traditional sources of leadership much higher than they rate non-traditional sources.

Among teacher roles, the more formalized the leadership expectation, the greater the
perceived influence.

Nonetheless, the influence of parents and students is significantly related to student
achievement. This result may reflect the well-known effects of student SES on
achievement.
If the profession has become enamored of distributed forms of leadership, as one
might infer from current scholarship, the responses of teachers surveyed here suggest that
few changes detectable by teachers have actually occurred in schools. The ground swell
of support for distributed conceptions of leadership may well be a kind of ―meta-rhetoric‖
denoting little reality ―on the ground.‖ This possibility is consistent with a familiar
criticism of schools: that as a means of legitimizing their work, they are more concerned
with the appearance than the substance of change.
Despite a decades-long effort to restructure schools—in part, at least, to give
parents a greater voice in school decisions—we see little evidence that teachers perceive
much influence from parents, or from students.48 This outcome probably reflects the wellknown and persistent challenges teachers and administrators face in creating authentic
relationships with parents for school-improvement purposes. Our results also reinforce
two other claims. First, significant change in schools requires much more than
encouragement and rational argument,49 strategies which have often been relied on to
promote greater parent influence. Second, as Jaques (2003) has long maintained,
hierarchy is a necessary, unavoidable feature of any large organization, even when
participants add structures and procedures to encourage lateral influence within the
48
49
Beck & Murphy (1998).
Desimone (2006)
32
hierarchy. If Jaques is correct, current expectations about the extent to which leadership
distribution is both possible and desirable in schools will need to be severely modified.
Patterns of Collective Leadership and Student Achievement
As we reported above, teachers on average perceived influence in their schools to
be exercised in a distributed but still hierarchical manner. Nevertheless, prompted by
widespread claims by many organizational theorists about the benefits of more
distributed forms of leadership, we sought to learn whether variations in these
perceptions of influence were related to levels of student achievement in schools. To
address this question we returned to Tannenbaum‘s early work (reviewed above) on
control graphs.50
5.5
Ratings
(Rating Scale: 1 to 6)
5.0
4.5
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
4.0
Q5
3.5
3.0
District
Principal Other S A Tea Role Sch Team Ind Tea
Ind Par
Par Adv
Student
Leadership Sources
Figure 3. Relationships between Sources of Collective Leadership Influence and Student
Achievement
Schools were divided into quintiles based on the mean achievement of their students on test scores over
three years. So, for example, Quintile 1 = schools with the lowest mean achievement over three years and
Quintile 5 = schools with the highest mean achievement over three years.
To distinguish schools by mean levels of achievement averaged over three years,
we constructed a control graph of our own. As Figure 3 indicates, we first divided the
schools in our sample into quintiles on the basis of mean annual student achievement
scores. Then we compared teachers‘ ratings of each source of collective leadership
influence across quintiles.
50
Tannenbaum (1961).
33
Results displayed in Figure 3 indicate that teachers in the highest-achieving
schools (Quintile 5) generally attributed higher levels of influence to all people and
groups than did teachers in lower-achieving schools. Even though they attributed greater
influence to non-traditional leadership roles in higher-achieving schools, teachers
perceived that those in traditional leadership roles had the same relative amount of
influence. For example, an increase in the influence of staff teams or parents does not
mean less influence for principals and district administrators. Furthermore, teachers in
schools whose students achieve in the highest and second-highest quintiles award
significantly more relative influence to staff teams; teachers in the highest-quintile
schools award significantly more relative influence, as well, to individual parents and to
groups of parents.
Although we do not include a table reporting all correlations, we found SES to be
significantly (and unsurprisingly) related to student achievement—a possible explanation
for the high level of influence parents and students apparently exercise in schools in the
higher quintiles of performance, which generally serve higher SES students. Three
correlations seem especially interesting: those between SES and the influence of
individual parents (r = .35), parent advisory committees (r = .53) and students (r = .36).
The influence of staff teams was also related to student SES as strongly as student
influence was (r = .34).51 Bidwell, Frank, & Quiroz (1997) provide evidence of the
relationship between SES and parental involvement, and, more interestingly, between
SES and levels of collegial control in schools. Schools in high-SES communities, Bidwell
found, tend to build collegial professional practice among teachers and to have a
particularly high focus on student learning.
This evidence indicates, in sum, that participants acting in traditional leadership
roles remain highly influential in high-performing schools, a result not evident from the
correlation analyses reported in Table 1.1.6. Reflecting a distinction by Dunlap and
Goldman (1991) between power-over and power-through, our results illustrate the point
that influence in schools is not a fixed sum. In the highest-performing schools, everyone
seems to have more influence than participants in low-performing schools, where
leadership may be ―laissez-faire‖—an approach to leadership almost invariably found to
be ineffective.52
Overall, we also see continuing support for Jaques‘ (2003) claim about the
inevitable presence of hierarchy in large organizations. Theorists who regard the
attainment of ―flat‖ organizational contours as something like a holy grail are running
ahead of the evidence. Indeed, the evidence we have reviewed and the implications it
suggests conform quite closely to a hypothesis prompted by Tannenbaum‘s conception of
control graphs (and proposed by McMahon and Perritt). A decade after Tannenbaum‘s
publication, McMahon and Perritt (1971) argued that organizational effectiveness may
have less to do with ―power equalization‖ than with perceived ―concordance‖ or
agreement across roles in control structures. Their research evaluated the degree to which
people in different roles in the organization were in agreement about who was most
51
52
These correlations are all significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
Avolio (1994).
34
influential. Their conclusion ―emphasizes the importance of agreement on the perceptions
of the control structure of various hierarchical echelons within an organization‖ (p. 339).
We are unable to test this claim directly with our own data, since teachers‘
perceptions are all we have; but it is a hypothesis worthy of further research, especially in
light of widespread, unfounded claims about the positive consequences of distributed
leadership and flat organizational structures. The pattern of leadership distribution
evident among the highest-achieving schools in our study reflects none of Tannenbaum‘s
prototypical models. It is, rather, a hybrid composed of ―autocratic‖ (influence rises with
hierarchical level) and ―polyarchic‖ (high levels of influence for all) prototypes. If one
were to accept the inevitability and value of hierarchy in organizing, this hybrid could
serve as a best-case scenario. Let‘s call it ―intelligent hierarchy‖ to reflect the
opportunities this hybrid approach affords to ensure that organizations take advantage of
the capabilities and strengths of most of their members while at the same time ensuring
careful coordination of effort in a common direction.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Three implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. In their efforts to improve student achievement, school- and district-level leaders
should, as a matter of policy and practice, extend significant decisional influence
to others in the school community. (See also Section 2.1.) Compared with lowerachieving schools, higher-achieving schools provided all stakeholders with
greater influence on decisions. The higher performance of these schools might be
explained as a consequence of the greater access they have to collective
knowledge and wisdom embedded within their communities.
2. Superintendents and principals working to extend influence to others should not
be unduly concerned about losing their own influence. Results reported here show
that higher-performing schools awarded greater influence to most stakeholders; at
the same time, little changed in these schools‘ overall hierarchical structure. Our
data depict the hierarchical structure of influence typically associated with roles
and responsibilities in schools and districts—a structure that conforms, we
believe, with Jacques‘ (2003) claim about requisite hierarchy in social
organizations large enough to place significant demands on the coordination of its
members‘ actions.
3. In responding to demands that they focus sharply on improving their teachers‘
instructional capacities, school and district leaders should not overlook the
influence they can have on classroom practice by continuing efforts to motivate
their teachers, and to align their teachers‘ work settings with what is known about
effective instructional practice.
35
Our results show that collective leadership is linked to student
achievement indirectly, through its effects on teacher motivation and teachers‘
workplace settings. As in several of our previous studies,53 we found significant
but much weaker relationships between leadership and teacher capacity. At least
in part, our measure of teacher capacity may explain these results. It was
primarily a measure of professional development opportunities—that is,
opportunities to learn from colleagues in a variety of ways—rather than a direct
measure of the knowledge and skills teachers need to foster student achievement.
In effect, while principals and their co-leaders exert a significant influence on
teacher access to professional learning opportunities, their power to influence the
quality and impact of those activities on teacher knowledge and skills may be
more limited. Thus, our finding of the absence of a strong relationship between
the indirect measure of teacher capacity that we used and student achievement
may simply reflect the low quality of typical professional development inputs
available to teachers in schools. This qualification, however, does not diminish
our finding that motivation and work settings—factors subject to leadership
influence—have significant effects on student achievement. In light of this, a
narrow focus on leadership efforts aimed only at building teacher capacities
would be misguided.
53
Leithwood & Jantzi (2006); Leithwood et al. (2004a).
36
1.2
Shared Leadership: Effects on Teachers and Students
of Principals and Teachers Leading Together
Key Findings

Leadership practices targeted directly at improving instruction have significant
effects on teachers‘ working relationships and, indirectly, on student achievement.

When principals and teachers share leadership, teachers‘ working relationships
are stronger and student achievement is higher.

Leadership effects on student achievement occur largely because effective
leadership strengthens professional community—a special environment within
which teachers work together to improve their practice and improve student
learning. Professional community, in turn, is a strong predictor of instructional
practices that are strongly associated with student achievement.

The link between professional community and student achievement may be
explained by reference to a school climate that encourages levels of student effort
above and beyond the levels encouraged in individual classrooms.

Students in elementary schools perform better on state tests than students in upper
grades. Principal leadership practices are unable, by themselves, to overcome this
difference.

The factor of trust is less significant than the factors of instructional leadership
and shared leadership (although it is associated with both).
Introduction
Section 1.1 describes the extent to which a wide array of stakeholders may
influence school decisions; it also describes the effects of broadly based influence on
student learning. Section 1.2 focuses more narrowly on relationships among actors within
schools, examining leadership shared by principals and teachers as it may affect
classroom practice and student learning.
We focus here on principals and teachers for two main reasons. First,
professionals acting within schools are uniquely well positioned to affect students‘
classroom experience. Second, the narrower focus pushes us beyond a simple definition
of leadership as influence, to a more explicit specification of the functions responsible for
such influence.
37
Section 1.2 addresses two questions:

Do three specific attributes of principals‘ leadership behavior—the sharing of
leadership with teachers, the development of trust relationships among professionals,
and the provision of support for instructional improvement—affect teachers‘ work
with one another, and their classroom practices?

Do these leadership behaviors and attributes contribute to student achievement?
Prior Evidence
Prior evidence relevant to this component of our study identifies factors related to
shared leadership, school conditions mediating the effects of shared leadership, and
effective classroom instruction. We focus on variables that may contribute to a school‘s
culture and climate, including (1) variables on which principals can have some direct
effect, such as principal-teacher relations, trust, and shared leadership; (2) variables on
which principals may have less influence, such as teacher-to-teacher relations in
professional communities, and collective responsibility; and (3) variables on which the
principal has indirect control, such as teachers‘ sense of personal efficacy, and the quality
of instruction.
We assume that the effects of principal leadership on students are almost entirely
indirect.54 The long line of research on school effectiveness shows that classroom
environment and the quality of instruction are the variables linked most strongly to
student learning (although some questions remain about the relative effectiveness of
specific modes of instruction).55 Teacher characteristics (such as type of degree or
certification) have limited effects,56 operating for the most part indirectly, through their
impact on instruction.57 In other words: to learn how leadership contributes to student
learning, we must ask how leadership affects instruction.58
Starting with Instruction
Various models of good instruction have evolved over the last several decades,
but differences among them remain only partially resolved. An early review of research
showed that certain instructional practices—e.g., using academic objectives to establish
learning expectations, using particular strategies for classroom management, and pacing
instruction appropriately, given the content to be taught and the characteristics of the
learners—were consistently associated with student achievement.59 After the late 1980s,
theory and research increasingly emphasized inquiry-based instructional models, in
which the teacher‘s most important role was in designing lessons or learning experiences
54
Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger (2003).
Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball (2003).
56
Wayne & Youngs (2003).
57
Smith, Desimone, & Ueno (2005).
58
Wahlstrom & Louis (2008).
59
Brophy (1986).
55
38
that involved guiding students toward new understanding through exploration and
induction.60 While some approaches to constructivism emphasized modest roles for
teachers (as ―guides on the side‖), others gave teachers clear responsibilities consistent
with traditional roles, but also for organizing learning environments that develop
students‘ sense of responsibility for their own learning.61
Researchers today rarely address ―time on task‖ as a simplistic factor. Still, a
growing body of evidence shows that student learning is enhanced when teachers
exercise appropriate control over the pacing of classroom work,62 at least when the
activity in question is based on rich materials and stimuli. Recent reviews have begun to
reemphasize the role of the teacher in directing student learning.63
A particular problem is that research based on observations of instruction in
widely varying settings (e.g., different disciplines, different grade levels) often yields
little in the way of details sufficiently specific to understand the choices particular
teachers must make.64 Taking adequate account of the complexity of classroom
instruction is very difficult. As Cohen, Raudenbush, and Ball (2003) note, this is because
teachers and students are independent and idiosyncratic actors. What happens
instructionally in a given situation is context-specific, making it difficult to generalize
validly about particular reform efforts aimed, for example, at developing shared
leadership and professional community. Moreover, research to date has done little to
identify direct links between the policies and practices of school-level leaders and the
provision of high-quality instruction, whether teacher-directed or teacher-guided.
In a previous paper we used factor analysis to demonstrate that teachers report a
distinctive style of teaching—one that incorporates direct influence over the pacing and
content of classroom work while also providing opportunities for students to take charge
of their own learning and construct their own knowledge. We called this style of teaching
―focused instruction.‖65 In our view, if we overlook certain teacher-educator debates,66
our finding that ―real teachers‖ combine elements of a traditional teacher-centered model
with elements of constructivist models is consistent with other research on instructional
approaches that are linked to student achievement.67
Instructional Leadership
As Hallinger (2005) notes in a recent review of scholarship, instructional
leadership is an idea that refuses to go away, although it has been poorly defined since it
was first introduced in the 1970s. In the school building, the principal is expected to
understand the tenets of quality instruction, and to have sufficient knowledge of the
60
Wiske (1998).
Fenstermacher & Richardson (2005).
62
Allington (2001); Knapp (1995); and Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole (2000).
63
Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006).
64
see, for example, Newmann & Associates (1996).
65
Wahlstrom & Louis (2008).
66
Wilson & Peterson (2006).
67
Newmann & Associates (1996).
61
39
curriculum to ensure that appropriate content is being delivered to all students.68 This
presumes that the principal is capable of providing constructive feedback to improve
teaching, or that she or he can design a system in which others provide this support.
Research shows that consistent, well-informed support from principals makes a
difference,69 and principals accordingly face increasing pressure to deliver (or at least
promote) better support for instruction.
In their efforts to act as instructional leaders, some principals benefit from support
provided, for example, through professional development programs; those who do are
more likely than others to enact this leadership role consistently.70 While some scholars
emphasize the importance of principals‘ deep understanding of curricular content and
instructional materials,71 others pay more attention to principals‘ support for improved
instruction.72 Typically, those who emphasize the importance of deep content knowledge
study elementary schools.73 Even in elementary schools, however, the principal‘s ability
to provide support through effective interaction may be more important than his or her
specific content knowledge.74
Middle and high school principals cannot be expected to provide substantive
support for instruction, given the multiple disciplines that are taught in their schools.
Thus, many studies of instructional leadership in secondary schools emphasize the
development of improved learning environments for teachers, focusing on the ability of
principals to stimulate teachers‘ innovative behavior.75 Because our study includes
secondary schools, we chose to emphasize supportive behaviors as well as direct
coaching or modeling of instruction.
Shared Leadership
For more than three decades, reform proposals have recommended the inclusion
of teachers in shared leadership roles. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, efforts to
promote school-based management often included formal representation of teachers in
decision making—although many investigations of these efforts report weak
implementation.76 Recent policy discussions (within, e.g., the Education Commission of
the States, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and teacher professional
associations) suggest broad support now for expanding teachers‘ participation in
leadership and decision-making tasks. These discussions are compatible with findings
from some research which suggests that increasing teacher influence may improve
schools significantly.77 Other research, however, suggests that teachers‘ involvement in
68
Marzano et al. (2005).
Hallinger (2005); Mosenthal, Lipson, Torncello, Russ, & Mekkelsen (2004).
70
Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor (2003).
71
Stein & Nelson (2003).
72
Leithwood (2001); O'Donnell & White (2005).
73
Burch & Spillane (2003).
74
Spillane, Hallett , & Diamond (2003).
75
Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, & Thomas (2007); Silins & Mulford (2004).
76
Anderson (1998); Malen (1994).
77
Leithwood et al. (2007); Leithwood et al. (2008); Mayrowetz & Smylie (2004); Spillane, Halvorson, &
Diamond (2004).
69
40
formal decision-making or leadership roles will have limited impact on student
achievement.78
Still, what constitutes and promotes the distribution or sharing of leadership in a
school is somewhat unclear. Sharing leadership may have its greatest impact by reducing
teacher isolation and increasing commitment to the common good.79 Experiencing
informal influence and feedback through professional discussions encourages a focus on
shared practices and goals,80 and it may foster organizational innovation.81 In this paper
we define shared leadership broadly to denote teachers‘ influence over, and their
participation in, school-wide decisions with principals. This view of shared leadership
reflects an emerging consensus among scholars about the people who are concerned with
formal and informal enactments of leadership roles; it also distinguishes our approach
from the approach of scholars who blend the concept of shared leadership with
instructional leadership.82
Trust
The concept of organizational trust has been a staple of organizational research
for some time. It matters a great deal whether participants in an organization trust the
decision-making capacity of the organization‘s leaders. Driscoll (1978) found that such
trust predicts overall satisfaction with the organization better than employee participation
in decision making. A more recent study examined changes in levels of trust within work
teams; it found that the perceived ability of colleagues was a strong predictor of trust, and
that trust was a significant predictor for risk-taking behaviors.83
In the past two decades, studies of trust as a factor in school improvement have
begun to illuminate certain actions leaders take to alter the culture in a school
positively.84 In a sample of secondary schools, Tarter et al. (1989) found that supportive
principal behavior and faculty trust were significantly correlated. In schools with higher
levels of engaged teachers, moreover, teachers expressed higher levels of trust in their
colleagues. Tarter‘s study implies that principals can build trust indirectly through
supportive behavior, but they cannot make teachers trust one another through direct
action. Similarly, Bryk and Schneider‘s (2003) study of Chicago elementary schools
found that principal respect and personal regard for teachers, competence in core role
responsibilities, and personal integrity were associated with relational trust among all
adult members of the school. Louis (2007) identified similar principal behaviors that
affect trust, and also linked trust to shared leadership. High-trust schools exhibited more
collective decision making, with a greater likelihood that reform initiatives were
widespread, and with demonstrated improvements in student learning. Tschannen-Moran
also outlined key leadership behaviors and specific actions that engender trust. For
78
Marks & Louis (1997); Smylie, Conley, & Marks (2002).
Pounder (1999).
80
Chrispeels, Castillo, & Brown (2000); Marks & Printy (2003).
81
Harris (2009).
82
Marks & Printy (2003).
83
Serva, Fuller, & Meyer (2005).
84
See, e.g., Bryk & Schneider (2003); Hoy & Sweetland (2001); Louis (2007b); Tarter, Bliss, & Hoy
(1989); Tschannen-Moran (2004).
79
41
example, ―Competence‖ is enacted by ―engaging in problem solving, setting standards,
buffering teachers, pressing for results‖ (2004, p.34). More recently, trust has been shown
to predict how educators interpret their superiors‘ ability to carry out more technical and
transformational leadership functions.85
Embedded in the notion of trust is the key distinction between the ―trustee‖ and
the ―trustor,‖—that is, those having more or less power (or dependence) in a particular
situation.86 Teachers‘ views of trustworthy principals tend to be based on the leadership
characteristics outlined above. However, we have much less information about why
principals do or do not trust their teachers.
Teacher Leadership and Professional Community
While we have focused thus far on shared leadership and principal-teacher trust,
teacher-teacher relationships are even more important as a foundation for the way in
which teachers work to improve instruction,87 and how they are affected by the leadership
behavior of principals.88 Here we emphasize the importance of professional community,
largely because accumulating evidence shows that it is related to improved instruction,
student achievement,89 and one of our leadership variables (shared leadership).90
York-Barr and Duke (2004) view professional community as a vehicle for the
exercise of teacher leadership, a perspective that we adopt in this paper. Supportive
interaction among teachers in school-wide professional communities enable them to
assume various roles with one another as mentor, mentee, coach, specialist, advisor,
facilitator, and so on. However, professional community amounts to more than just
support; it also includes shared values, a common focus on student learning, collaboration
in the development of curriculum and instruction, and the purposeful sharing of
practices—all of which may be thought of as distributed leadership.91
Findings from several studies cited above suggest that when the professional
community focuses on the quality of student learning, teachers adopt instructional
practices that enhance students‘ learning. While many factors affect whether or not
professional community exists in a school, one highly significant factor is strong
leadership by principals.92 Professional community is closely associated with
organizational learning, and the term ―professional learning communities‖ has become a
common shorthand expression among practitioners. Thus, the presence of a professional
community appears to foster collective learning of new practices—when there is
principal leadership.93
85
Daly & Chrispeels (2008).
Driscoll (1978).
87
Louis (2006).
88
Wiley (2001).
89
King & Newmann (2001); Louis & Marks (1998); Smylie & Wenzel (2003).
90
Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers (2007); York-Barr & Duke (2004).
91
Hord & Sommers (forthcoming); McLaughlin & Talbert (2002).
92
See, e.g., Bryk, Camburn & Louis (1999), and Louis & Marks (1998).
93
Marks, Louis, & Printy (2002).
86
42
School Level
Many characteristics of schools may moderate leadership effects. In this paper,
we focus on potential differences between elementary and secondary schools.
Investigations of principal leadership effects on teachers and students are often carried
out using only one type of school.94 Those that use samples from all levels (e.g., Marks &
Printy, 2003) are based on a small number of cases, while those based on a larger number
of schools often use a convenience sample drawn from a single district.95 Nevertheless,
there is reason to suppose that leadership practices and their effects may be different in
elementary and secondary schools, given differences of school size and organization. The
principal in a very large school simply does not have time to work directly with all
teachers. As Harris (2002) points out, secondary school principals seem to influence
teachers and teaching practice because of the organizational climate they create, not
through specific interactions or interventions.
New Evidence
An analytic framework derived from prior scholarship and our previous
investigation of the relationship between principal leadership and instruction guided our
examination of shared leadership.96 We assumed that both principal-teacher relationships
(indicated by trust, instructional leadership, and perceptions of shared leadership) and
teacher-teacher relationships (indicated by professional community) will affect classroom
practice. Classroom practice—particularly the type of instruction that combines elements
of teacher-directed and constructivist approaches—should, in turn, affect student
learning. We emphasize the importance of classroom practice as the direct cause of
increased student learning because there is little evidence, from either survey or
qualitative research, that principal leadership can have a direct effect apart from changes
in teacher practice.
Our specific intention, once again, is to explore two questions:

Do three specific attributes of principals‘ leadership behavior—the sharing of
leadership with teachers, the development of trust relationships among professionals,
and the provision of support for instructional improvement—affect teachers‘ work
with each other and their classroom practices?

Do these leadership behaviors and attributes contribute to student achievement?
Method
This component of our study utilized data from the first and second round of
teacher surveys. Each of the two surveys contained some items from established
instruments, as well as many new items. This section of our study is based on surveys of
94
Bryk & Schneider (2002); Cascadden (1998); Friedkin & Slater (1994); Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy
(2000a); Harris (2002).
95
Leech & Fulton (2008); Leithwood & Jantzi (1999a).
96
Wahlstrom & Louis (2008).
43
4,491 teachers in 43 districts in 157 schools, with a response rate of 67% (for Round One,
in 2005), and 3,900 teachers in 40 districts in 134 schools, with a response rate of 55%
(for Round Two, in 2008).97 It combines some measures from the first teacher survey
(principal leadership variables) with some from the second teacher survey (measures of
trust, and an improved measure of focused instruction).
We measured each of the variables in the surveys using multiple items. The items
and their alphas are shown in Table 1.2.1. We wish to draw particular attention to the
Focused Instruction variable, which combines elements of constructivist (student
controlled) and direct (teacher controlled) behaviors. The other measures are based
largely on items that we adapted for this study from previous surveys.
97
The method of survey administration, which involved filling out surveys during a faculty meeting, makes
a completely accurate response rate difficult to determine, largely because of incomplete staff lists at the
building level. In addition, a few schools that participated in 2004 dropped out for 2008, and were replaced.
Because we use data from both surveys, our N of schools is thus reduced to 106 when missing achievement
data are factored in.
44
TABLE 1.2.1 Scale Reliability for Variables
(N = 106 Schools)
Variable
Alpha
Focused
Instruction
.77
Professional
Community
. 85
Shared
Leadership
.78
Instructional
Leadership
.82
Trust
.90
Sample Items
3-16 My instructional strategies enable students to construct their own
knowledge.
3-18 Disruptions of instructional time are minimized.
3-19 Most students in my class are capable of taking charge of their own
learning in age-appropriate ways.
3-20 I focus on developing a deep knowledge of the core subjects that I
teach.
2-4 Most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs, and
attitudes related to teaching and learning.
2-8 In our school we have well defined learning expectations for all students.
3-17 How many teachers in this school take responsibility for improving the
school outside their own class?
3-20 How often in this school year have you invited someone in to help teach
your class(es)?
3-22 How often in this school year have you received meaningful feedback
on your performance from colleagues?
3-23 How often in this school year have you visited other teachers'
classrooms to observe instruction?
3-28 How often in this school year have you had conversations with
colleagues about what helps students learn best?
2-3 The department chairs/grade-level team leaders influence how money is
spent in this school.
2-5 Teachers have an effective role in school-wide decision making.
2-19 Teachers have significant input into plans for professional development
and growth.
4-9 School's principal(s) ensures wide participation in decisions about school
improvement.
4-10 My school administrator clearly defines standards for instructional
practices.
4-13 How often in this school year has your school administrator discussed
instructional issues with you?
4-16 How often in this school year has your school administrator observed
your classroom instruction?
4-18 How often in this school year has your school administrator attended
teacher planning meetings?
4-19 How often in this school year has your school administrator made
suggestions to improve classroom behavior or classroom management?
4-21 How often in this school year has your school administrator given you
specific ideas for how to improve your instruction?
4-24 When teachers are struggling, our principal provides support for them.
4-25 Our principal ensures that all students get high quality teachers.
4-26 If my principal promised to do something, s/he would follow through.
4-27 In general, I believe my principal's motives and intentions are good.
4-28 I feel free to discuss work problems with my principal without fear of
having it used against me later.
45
Using the conceptual framework outlined above, we initially performed
correlation analyses and stepwise linear regressions. We then used causal modeling
(using the SPSS AMOS program) to examine the direct and indirect effects of leadership
on achievement. We chose mathematics achievement as our dependent measure largely
because within-school variability in instructional quality may be lower for mathematics
than for other subjects.98 However, we also conducted comparable analyses using state
literacy test scores, with results similar to those reported below.
The Indirect Nature of Leadership Effects
We initially assumed that the effects of leadership on student achievement are
largely indirect, operating through other variables. We examined this assumption by
examining correlations, which are presented in Table 1.2.2. The results indicate that
achievement scores in mathematics are significantly associated with focused instruction,
professional community, and teachers‘ trust in the principal; they are not significantly
associated with principal behaviors (instructional leadership and shared leadership),
which provides support for our assumption. Trust in the principal and professional
community, on the other hand, are both associated with achievement in mathematics,
which suggests that relationships among adults may be important factors determining
how well students perform. In our sample, students in elementary schools perform better
than students in secondary schools on state benchmark tests.
Table 1.2.2
Relationship between Survey Variables and Student Achievement: Correlation Coefficients
(N = 106 Schools)
2004-05
Mean Math Building Mean Building Mean
Building Mean Building Mean
Proficiency for
Focused
Instructional Building Mean
Shared
Professional
That Building
Instruction Leadership T2
Trust T2
Leadership
Community
2004-05 Mean Math
Proficiency for That
Building
Building Mean
Focused Instruction
summed
Building Mean
Instructional
Leadership T2
Building Mean Trust
T2
Building Mean
Shared Leadership
Building Mean
Professional
Community
Bldg Level 0=Elem
1 = Mid/Jr/Sr
98
1
.269**
.006
1
-.071
.475
.310**
.001
1
.249*
.011
.170
.052
.198*
.023
.436**
.000
.330**
.000
.510**
.000
.490**
.000
.106
.276
.420**
.000
.256**
.007
.451**
.000
.597**
.000
1
-.216*
.013
-.315**
.001
-.166
.086
-.252**
.009
-.209*
.014
-.540**
.000
1
1
Newmann & Associates (1996).
46
If we look at the remaining cells in the correlation matrix, it is clear that the
measures of predictors are highly correlated. Our data are consistent with results from
other studies in suggesting, for example, that on many measures the quality of teachers‘
work life (trust, professional community, experience of strong leadership) is lower in
secondary schools.99 In addition, teachers whose experience with other adults is positive
on one of our dimensions tend to have similarly positive responses on the others. In sum,
while the results are confirmatory, they suggest a need for further analysis to investigate
how the relationships among the variables may combine to affect teachers‘ classroom
practice and student learning. We therefore conducted several stepwise regression
analyses to address the two questions serving as the focus for this sub-study.
Effects on Teachers’ Work of Selected Attributes of Leadership Behavior
To address this question, we performed further analyses on results from our
earlier investigations,100 looking at the relationship between principal behaviors and
characteristics and teachers‘ instructional practice. The results of this regression are
presented in Table 1.2.3.
Table 1.2.3
Regression of Instructional Practice on Teacher and Principal Leadership
(N = 106 Schools)
Beta
t
9.471
Sig.
.000
1
(Constant)
.510
2
Prof. Community
(Constant)
6.102
9.138
.000
.000
Prof. Community
Instructional
Leadership
Trust in Principal
.337
.041
3.173
.422
.002
.674
.239
2.432
.017
Shared Leadership
.096
1.014
.313
3
(Constant)
8.141
.000
Prof. Community
.280
2.285
.024
Instructional
Leadership
Trust in Principal
.051
.524
.601
.233
2.358
.020
Shared Leadership
.113
1.167
.246
Building Level
-.092
-.946
.346
Model F
R(R2)
.37.24***
.51(.26)
12.15*
.56(.32)
9.9
.57(.33)
Sig ≥.01 *
Sig ≥ .001**
99
Louis & Marks (1998).
Wahlstrom & Louis (2008); Louis & Marks (1998).
100
47
Using a 3 model approach, we first examined the relationship between
professional community and focused instruction, adding principal behaviors and
characteristics in model 2, and finally adding school level, which has been shown in
previous studies to affect both professional community and instruction. The results
suggest that professional community and trust in the principal are the only significant
predictors. In addition, until building level is added in model 3, professional community
seems to bear more weight than trust (the change in the relationship in model 3 is
presumably accounted for by the negative relationship between being a secondary school
and trusting the principal). It is apparently the case that collegial relationships among
adults in the school, whether principal-teacher or teacher-teacher, lead to stronger
focused instruction.
The Influence of Principal Leadership on Student Achievement
To address the second question, about the effects of principal leadership on
student achievement, we again used a 3 model approach.
Table 1.2.4
Regression of Student Achievement in Math
on Teacher and Principal Leadership Variables
(N = 106 Schools)
Standardized
Coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
Focused Instruction
2
3
Significance
Beta
t
-1.372
Sig.
.173
.267
2.785
.006
(Constant)
-1.624
.107
Focused Instruction
.208
1.887
.062
Prof. Community
.119
1.076
.284
(Constant)
-.695
.489
Focused Instruction
.179
1.597
.114
Prof. Community
.108
.761
.449
Bldg. Level
-.154
-1.398
.165
Instructional
Leadership
Trust in Principal
-.315
-2.816
.006
.243
2.102
.038
Shared Leadership
-.059
-.534
.594
Model
F/Sig.
Change
R(R2)
7.76**
.27(.07)
4.46*
.29 (.08)
3.74**
.44(.19)
Sig ≥.01 *
Sig ≥ .001**
48
We looked first at the instruction-learning relationship in model 1, then added
professional community (teacher-teacher relationships) as a second step, and finally
added both building level and leadership characteristics in a third stage (Table 1.2.4). The
results indicate that instructional practices have a significant effect on achievement
(Model 1), but that this effect is diminished when we introduce teachers‘ professional
community (Model 2), and it is further diminished when we look at school level and
school demographic characteristics (Model 3).
The second regression model shows that adding professional community to the
simple instruction-achievement model barely raises the percentage of variance explained.
However, when the leadership variables are added in model 3, there is a large increase in
the R and R2, which suggests that principal leadership, even if it operates indirectly, is
important. Both trust in leadership and instructional leadership exhibit significant
regression coefficients, while building level and shared leadership are insignificant.
Overall, adding leadership variables and the building level control variable more than
double the percentage of explained variance in mathematics achievement. In other words,
the regression evidence is strong for a relatively important leadership effect.
While the regressions support our assumption that leadership affects student
learning, we assumed that it was unwise to over-interpret the regression coefficients,
given the relatively high correlations among the predictor variables. In addition, the
results of the two regressions raise as many questions as they answer. Why, for example,
does instructional leadership exercised by principals have an insignificant effect in the
regressions that focused on instruction as the dependent variable, while it shows a strong
effect when the dependent variable is student achievement? We therefore moved to test
our assumptions through causal modeling, guided by a set of possible interpretations of
the regressions, as well as the literature reviewed above.
Figure 4 presents the model that illustrates the least complicated approach to
answering the two questions motivating our inquiry.
Figure 4: Effects of Principals’ Leadership Behavior on Teachers and Student
Achievement
49
The model makes the simplifying assumption that we do not know enough to
examine a causal relationship among the three measures of leadership
behavior/characteristics. They are, thus, positioned, along with the dichotomous variable
reflecting the building level (elementary/secondary) at the left side of the model. In light
of prior research, we then assume that leadership behaviors and characteristics are the
factors most likely to create the conditions for professional community to develop among
teachers. We discuss additional assumptions in our interpretation of results, which
follows.
We used the maximum likelihood method for the path analysis. We assessed
goodness of fit between the model and the data via three fit indices: the goodness-of-fit
index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). GFI, NFI, and
CFI values greater than .9 indicate that the model is a good fit with the data.101 The CFI is
particularly critical, since it is a useful statistic with relatively small samples.102 The
values of the GFI (.952), CFI (.924,), and the NFI (.900) all meet the suggested criterion.
Taken together, these results indicate that the fit between the model and the data is
adequate.103
We interpret the findings of the path analysis as follows:

Although principal instructional leadership has significant effects on teachers‘
working relationships (professional community), its direct effects on instruction are
limited.

Shared leadership was not assumed to have a direct effect on instruction, but rather
an indirect effect through professional community as a locus for teacher leadership
focused on instructional improvement. The model confirms this indirect relationship.

Trust, which represents the emotional bond between the principal and teachers, was
assumed to have a strong impact on teacher-teacher relationships. The model
suggests, however, that its impact on professional community is limited, compared to
the effect of leadership behaviors.

Building level, as expected, has a strong effect on professional community (with
elementary schools being advantaged), and an equally strong direct effect on
achievement (again, an elementary school advantage), but no significant effect on
focused instruction. We did not expect the latter result; it suggests a need for further
investigation to clarify the dynamics of professional community, instruction, and
achievement in high schools. We explore this topic further in Section 1.5.

Professional community has significant indirect effects on achievement, owing to its
strong relationship to focused instruction.
101
Bentler & Bonett (1980).
Bentler (1990).
103
The RMSEA is .45, which is considerably higher than the suggested value of .05.
102
50
Discussion
Efforts to determine how principal leadership affects student achievement have a
rich, albeit recent, history. Our analysis provides the most extensive empirical test to date
of whether instructional leadership, shared leadership, and trust in the principal, when
considered together, have the potential to increase student learning. The answer is an
unqualified yes, but the findings are complex and suggest a need for further analysis.
First, the emotional side of principal behavior—which we have assessed by
reference to teachers‘ trust in the principals as ethical, caring, and competent—has on its
own been shown to have a strong relationship to student outcomes. In our study,
however, its relative significance diminishes when we take into consideration principal
behaviors, as measured by our constructs of instructional leadership and shared
leadership. Still, we are not prepared, based on a single study and a simple path model, to
discount the importance of the emotional side of leadership, which has been shown in
studies in industry as well as education to have powerful effects on the way in which
people engage with their work.
Because trust is highly correlated with other key measures used in this study, we
are inclined to say that our assumption—that trust is not reciprocal, for example, with
professional community—is unwarranted. Further investigation is warranted to determine
how the emotional side of leadership interacts with other leadership behaviors and with
teachers‘ relationships with one another. Follow-up research might build on existing
work, but it also should attend more directly to instrumental leadership actions.104
Shared leadership and instructional leadership are important variables, but they
are indirectly related to student achievement. Both seem to gain their influence because
of their strong relationships to other variables: to the way in which teachers organize
themselves into professional communities, to reflective discussions about instruction, and
to a sense of collective responsibility for student learning. This finding is hardly
surprising when we consider the arguments for shared leadership, which generally
emphasize expanding the sphere of responsibility and creativity to meet pressing school
needs. The largely indirect effects of instructional leadership are, however, equally
significant. While principals may engage in classroom visits and model good teaching by
working with individual teachers, individual interventions (which would have emerged as
a direct effect on good classroom practice) seem less important than detailed
investigations of elementary schools suggest.105
The finding is important because shared leadership and instructional leadership
are often regarded as alternative strategies for reaching the desired end of student
learning. Those advocating instructional leadership emphasize the need to maintain a
singular focus on classroom practice as the key to improving student achievement, and
they point to the important role of the principal as a model. Others who look at shared
leadership point to the importance of creating a learning organization in which all eyes
104
105
Hargreaves (2001); Leithwood & Beatty (2007); Little (1996); Zembylas (2003).
Spillane (2005); Stein & Nelson (2003).
51
are focused on leadership for learning. Our data suggest that these are complementary
approaches, and that both may be necessary. Thus, using a larger and more diverse
sample, we affirm Marks and Printy‘s (2003) work, which emphasizes the importance of
combining leadership foci (in their case, transformational and instructional).
The findings regarding differences between elementary and secondary schools are
particularly important as we begin to develop theories of effective school leadership. Our
results, as we have noted, suggest the need for further inquiry; still, it is clear that the job
of fostering student achievement is far easier in elementary schools than in secondary
schools.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Four implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Teachers and educators holding formal administrative responsibilities need to
acknowledge and act on the importance of collective, shared efforts to improve
instruction.
Professional community is regarded by some teachers as a code term for
an administratively initiated program designed to encourage teachers to analyze
student achievement data and turn it into improved test scores. Our analysis
suggests that the reality is more complex. Teachers do need to work together to
improve instruction and student learning, but administrators also need to be part
of the process. The process may be as simple as having principals participate in
professional development activities for teachers, or as complex as reorganizing
the formal authority structure of the school. In any case, it requires a rethinking of
the ―bright line‖ that often separates administration and teaching.
2. To realize their potential as instructional leaders, principals working in middle
schools and high schools need particular modes of support. They face a distinct
challenge, shaped by the large, complex settings in which they work, and the level
of support extended to them should be commensurate with their distinct needs.
Simply increasing the pressure on principals is unlikely to bring about real
improvements in principal-teacher collaboration and achievement levels in
secondary schools. Many school districts, however, lack the capacity to do more
than that. We suggest accordingly that entities at the state or the regional/national
level will need to be involved. Because we know from international studies (
PISA and TIMSS, e.g.) that secondary schools are the weakest link in our
educational system, and that they show limited capacity for improvement under
current accountability policies, we suggest that designing and providing new
programs to support secondary school principals must become a policy priority.
52
3. Principal preparation and professional development programs should continue to
emphasize both the ―softer‖ (emotional) and the ―harder‖ (behavioral) aspects of
leadership. While our results suggest that principals‘ behavior is more important
than the levels of trust principals evoke, behavior and levels of trust are
empirically part of a bundle that is difficult to disentangle. Trust without
instructional and shared leadership to support it may be of little consequence for
students, but our data suggest that teachers‘ relationships with one another, and
their trust in the principal, cannot be easily disaggregated.
4. While public policy and community opinion increasingly put pressure on
principals to improve student performance, it is equally important to expect that
principals also take actions that support instructional and shared leadership which
lead to improved student learning. Increasing teachers‘ involvement in the
difficult task of making good decisions and introducing improved practices must
be at the heart of school leadership. There is no simple short-cut.
53
1.3
Patterns of Distributed Leadership by Principals:
Sources, Beliefs, Interactions, and Influences
Key Findings

While there are many sources of leadership in schools, principals remain the
central source.

How leadership is distributed in schools depends on what is to be accomplished,
on the availability of professional expertise, and on principals‘ preferences
regarding the use of professional expertise.

No single pattern of leadership distribution is consistently linked to student
learning.

Principals are involved in many leadership activities; others who act as leaders in
the school ordinarily do so in respect to one or a few initiatives.

Leadership is more distributed for practices aimed at ―developing people‖ and
―managing instruction‖ than it is for ―setting directions‖ and ―structuring the
workplace.‖

More complex and coordinated patterns of distributed leadership appear when
school improvement initiatives focus directly on student learning goals, as distinct
from the implementation of specific programs.
Introduction
Leadership can be conceptualized and studied as an individual or an
organizational phenomenon. The former conception orients us toward an analysis of the
beliefs, actions, personal traits, and influence of individuals recognized by others as
leaders. An organizational perspective suggests that leadership is unlikely to be
constituted solely of the actions and influence of an individual. According to this view,
we need to examine the range of leadership sources, beliefs, actions, interactions, and
influences recognized by participants in those settings.
Section 1.1 of our report describes influence arising from various sources of
leadership as that influence comes to bear on school decisions, teachers‘ work, and
student learning. Section 1.2 describes leadership shared among principals and teachers
as that leadership relates to instruction, trust, professional community, and student
achievement. These two sections are based on evidence from teacher surveys and student
54
achievement data. In contrast, Section 1.3 is based on evidence from principal and
teacher interviews. We analyze this evidence in an effort to answer four questions:

Who participates in leadership distribution?

What patterns does leadership distribution take?

How is responsibility for ―core‖ leadership functions (described in other sections)
distributed?

How is leadership distribution related to school improvement goals?
Prior Evidence
Scholars recently have focused considerable attention on the properties and
complexities of leadership distribution in schools and districts—sources, focal points,
functions, interactions, contexts, and outcomes.106 We know that leadership may be
distributed in various patterns, though consensus on a typology and terms remains
elusive. Furthermore, we know little to nothing about how different forms of leadership
distribution enhance or do not enhance the accomplishment of organizational goals.
Gronn (2002) refers to holistic and additive models of leadership distribution. The
additive model refers to a dispersed pattern of leadership in which multiple members of
an organization provide leadership for varying goals and/or tasks. Different members
may provide leadership for different purposes, without coordination or a shared focus.
The holistic model suggests greater interdependency and coordination among varied
sources, focused on shared goals and tasks.
At a more micro-level, Spillane (2006) identifies three arrangements for
distributing leadership responsibilities: division of labor (different leaders for different
tasks), co-performance (multiple leaders together for same task), and parallel
performance (multiple leaders perform the same tasks but in different contexts).
Similarly, Goldstein (2003) and Gronn (2002) distinguish between situations in which
leadership for specific tasks is enacted by multiple leaders, together or separately.
Spillane expands upon this formulation, defining three types of co-performance:
collaborated distribution (multiple leaders jointly enact the same leadership practice in
the same context); collective distribution (multiple leaders perform separate but
interdependent tasks in different contexts and in support of the same goal); and
coordinated distribution (interdependent actions of multiple leaders are performed in a
particular sequence).
Recently, Leithwood and his colleagues have conceptualized a typology that
offers a more general theoretical framework for exploring the distribution of leadership in
106
MacBeath (2005) and Spillane (2006)
55
organizations.107 The framework, grounded in a research-based definition of leadership,
identifies four categories of ―core‖ leadership functions: setting directions, developing
people, redesigning the organization, and managing the instructional program.108 This
typology emphasizes variability in the alignment of leadership functions and in beliefs
associated with different forms of alignment: planful alignment, spontaneous alignment,
spontaneous misalignment, and anarchic misalignment.
The analysis in Section 1.3 builds on past theory and research to explore the
nature and patterns of leadership distribution in schools, focusing on sources of
leadership influence and the relation of leadership influence to student performance. We
pay particular attention to the role principals play in the distribution of leadership.
New Evidence
Method
Data for our analyses arise from interviews with school personnel in a sub-sample
of schools participating in the site-visit component of the larger study. The teacher survey
administered to all participating schools during the first round of data collection included
a set of items designed to measure the relative influence of those in multiple roles on
school decision making (see Section 1.1). From these items, we derived a measure of
collective leadership that enabled us to make comparisons across schools by reference to
the range of sources of leadership influence and the strength of that influence on teachers.
We selected a purposive sample of site-visit schools for this analysis. First, we
classified all site-visit schools as high, medium, or low on the collective leadership and
student performance measures. From the resulting matrix, we selected five schools for
qualitative analysis of leadership distribution. These schools varied widely on collective
leadership scores and student performance. The sample (Table 1.3.1) included elementary
and middle schools, schools in high- and low-SES settings, and schools in inner-city,
suburban and rural settings across four states (Texas, Missouri, Oregon, and New Jersey).
We collected data for each school, using all school administrator and teacher
interviews conducted during the first site visit (8-10 interviews per school). We
transcribed all interviews and entered the transcripts into an NVivo project data base that
included leadership as one of the core codes.
We employed a three-stage process of analysis. In stage one we created
descriptions of leadership activities in each school derived from the NVivo data queries.
We developed a findings template that drew upon Spillane‘s conceptualization of
leadership practice.109 The template enabled us to construct descriptions of (1) sources of
107
Leithwood et al. (2007)
Justification for these categories is provided in Leithwood & Riehl (2005); Leithwood, Louis, et al.
(2004); and Leithwood & Jantzi (2006).
109
Spillane (2006).
108
56
leadership linked to (2) specific actions and (3) goals in (4) specific contexts, along with
(5) the co-participants in those situations, (6) the reported effects of those actions, and (7)
the reported factors influencing those leadership variables. This analysis generated 15-25
leadership scenario templates per school.
In stage two we recoded each scenario according to the core leadership practices
exemplified (here we used operational definitions derived from Leithwood & Jantzi,
2006). Then we wrote an analysis of the leadership distribution patterns we discerned in
the scenarios, applying concepts from research on leadership distribution as appropriate.
In stage three we wrote a case report for each school, integrating findings from
the scenario analyses and structured according to the research questions. The findings
presented and discussed here highlight key themes and findings that emerged from the
cross-case analysis.
TABLE 1.3.1
Sample School Characteristics
Collective Leadership
Student
Achievement110
London Elementary
High
High
Overton Elementary
High
Low
Gregory Elementary
High
High
Playa Junior High
Low
Middle
Forest Elementary
Low
Low
School
Setting111
Size: 537 Pupils
Diversity: High
Poverty: High
Size: 221 Pupils
Diversity: Med
Poverty: Med
Size: 581 Pupils
Diversity: Med
Poverty: High
Size: 345 Pupils
Diversity: High
Poverty: High
Size: 443 Pupils
Diversity: High
Poverty: Med
Who Participates in Leadership Distribution?
Consistent with the findings of others,112 we found that school personnel did not
attribute leadership actions and influence only to one source, and not always to the
principal. The individuals or groups identified as providing leadership included a mix of
principals, assistant principals, teachers in formal leadership roles (e.g., grade or subject
110
Student achievement rankings calculated by comparing the percentage of students scoring at or above
minimum state proficiency standards on state-mandated assessments in reading and mathematics (20022005) relative to other schools in the states where these schools are located.
111
Diversity (Low=66%+ White; Medium=18%-65% White; High=0-17% White); Poverty (Low=0-17%
F/R lunch; Medium=18%-65% F/R lunch; High=66%+ F/R lunch).
112
Evidence of this is provided by Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor (2003); Hall (1992); Heller & Firestone
(1995); Leithwood et al. (2004a); and Spillane (2006).
57
team leaders) and teachers with specialist positions (e.g., literacy specialists, technology
specialists, counselors). Teachers also identified other teachers informally recognized by
peers as influential; school leadership or management committees; school program teams
or committees (e.g., Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Limited English
Proficiency); parent involvement personnel; district administrators and professional staff;
and external consultants linked to particular areas of curriculum, program, and teacher
development priorities at the school level.
What Patterns Does Leadership Distribution Take?
Mere identification of the various individuals and groups contributing to school
leadership provides scant insight into the actual distribution of leadership. Overall,
principals were more likely than any other source to be implicated in multiple leadership
responsibilities. Three overall patterns of distribution appeared across the five schools:

Pattern One (London, Overton, and Gregory Elementary Schools). The leadership
influence of the principal was evident across various focal points of schoolimprovement activity. Principals were seen to exercise influence in planful
collaboration with influential school-based teacher leaders (individuals and groups)
and with outside sources (district specialists, external consultants) associated with
particular goal-oriented initiatives. In these schools there was a strong emphasis on
professional collaboration among teachers, including teachers in instructional
leadership roles that crossed curriculum and grade boundaries. These schools had
high collective leadership ratings on the survey measure.

Pattern Two (Playa Jr. High School). The leadership influence of the principal
extended across various focal points of school-improvement activity, but the evidence
was less robust for influential sources of teacher leadership and for principal
collaboration with teachers and/or external change agents. Teacher leadership was
limited to traditional grade-level or program-specific structures, and there was less
emphasis, school-wide, on teacher collaboration.

Pattern Three (Forest Elementary School). The principal interacted administratively
with various focal points of school-improvement activity, but she had little influence
on implementation. Key teachers or external agents were identified with support for
different improvement initiatives, yet teachers attributed little influence to their
enactment of those roles. Teachers did not report an emphasis on, or culture of,
teacher collaboration within or across school organizational structures.
These findings from the five schools are consistent with the higher collective
leadership scores in London, Overton and Gregory Schools, and with the lower scores in
Playa and Forest Schools. Sometimes leadership is conceptualized as a school-level
phenomenon; sometimes it is conceptualized for a specific, goal-oriented activity.
Gronn‘s (2002) distinction between additive and holistic leadership is useful for
describing leadership distribution here. Among our cases, Forest Elementary provides the
clearest example of a school in which the overall pattern of leadership distribution
58
corresponded to an additive pattern, at least in a formal, bureaucratic sense (teachers
attributed little actual influence to those in formal positions of leadership responsibility).
The distribution of leadership sources in London, Overton, and Gregory Schools
conformed more closely to the holistic pattern of leadership distribution. This is clearly
reflects the extension of the principal‘s leadership influence across various focal points of
school improvement. Playa School did not clearly fit either an additive or a holistic
pattern of distribution in leadership sources, in part because there was no strong teacherleader presence.
Teachers’ Collective Influence as a Pattern of Distributed Leadership
Teachers in several schools talked about the collective influence of teachers, not
merely the influence of colleagues identified as teacher leaders. Collective influence,
these teachers reported, was instrumental in school decisions and in broader decisions
about school improvement. They framed it as a function of whether the principal and
district authorities invited, valued, and acted upon input from teachers. This qualitative
finding reinforces the teacher survey-based findings on collective and shared leadership
presented in Sections 1.1 and 1.2.
In London School, for example, teachers reported that a previous principal rarely
solicited teacher input; when she did, teachers said, she rarely acted in ways that
acknowledged the value of that input. They felt unsupported, and increasingly they kept
their opinions and ideas themselves, thereby decreasing the potential for broader teacher
influence on decisions in the school. That changed when a new principal came in—one
who was perceived as genuinely seeking and respecting teacher input and influence on
school decisions. Teachers and principals in Overton and Gregory Schools also affirmed
the presence and influence of a strong collective voice from teachers, facilitated by the
principal‘s orientation to teacher input and to organizational structures enabling that
input. These findings stand out in contrast to discussions, widespread in the profession,
that focus narrowly on the leadership contributions of individually influential teachers.
Formal Role Designations and Patterns of Distributed Leadership
It is tempting to associate the bureaucratic distribution of roles, responsibilities,
and authority with the distribution of leadership sources and influence. Beyond the
pervasive role of the principal, however, our findings paint a more complex picture.
First, the bureaucratic allocation of responsibility to perform certain functions and
tasks does not necessarily mean that the persons or groups so designated will be
perceived as influencing what others think and do. Spillane (2006) argues that leadership
sources and acts can be recognized as such even if they do not yield their intended
effects. But that argument is difficult to sustain against evidence (from Forest School, for
example) about people in formal leadership positions whose actions are not seen by
school personnel to make much difference.
Second, bureaucratic structures do not determine how patterns of leadership
distribution will be enacted through any given bureaucratic structure. A given
59
bureaucratic structure may be compatible with more than one pattern of leadership
enactment. The schools examined here all had multi-stakeholder school leadership
committees and special program committees (e.g., special education, bilingual
education); they all had a similar array of formal teacher-leader positions, including
subject and grade team leaders. Some had teachers assigned to instructional leadership
roles associated with priorities for improvement in program and instruction (e.g., in
literacy and mathematics). However, actual patterns of leadership influence varied from
school to school. Even in single schools, we found examples of variation over time in
how leadership was enacted and distributed through the same bureaucratic structures.
Principal succession was a factor in each of these situations.
In London School the current principal and her predecessor both worked with a
School-Based Management Team, grade-level teams, cross-grade subject teams, special
program committees (gifted education, bilingual education, etc.), and specialist roles
(counselor, literacy teacher, parent involvement coordinator, etc.). Under the previous
principal, the leadership distribution pattern had been highly additive, and the principal
was uninvolved with school-improvement initiatives. These initiatives were mandated by
the district; they proceeded in an uncoordinated manner, guided and managed by grade
team leaders, specialists, and external consultants. The new principal took on a proactive
leadership role, exercising influence within existing governance structures in a way that
spanned multiple focal points of school-improvement activity. That change yielded a
more holistic pattern of leadership distribution.
In Gregory Elementary School a previous principal led an effort to implement the
Accelerated Schools comprehensive school reform model. This effort entailed formation
of five curriculum cadres, a school-site council, and a school-improvement planning
process. While the cadres and council were chaired by teachers, and teacher influence on
school directions, improvement plans, and professional development was reportedly
strong, school personnel said that the previous principal played a more overt coperformance leadership role within those structures than the current principal. The current
principal and assistant principal talked about deliberately stepping back from a coperformance leadership role to a more indirect advisory role in the cadres and site
council. Teachers also reported that adherence to the needs assessment and planning
processes became less stringent under the new principal. These cases show that formal
organizational structures create an institutional framework for the distribution and
enactment of leadership, but they do not determine how leadership plays out over time.
In sum, it is important to distinguish the formal allocation of leadership roles and
responsibilities from what Leithwood et al. (2007) define as the planful alignment of
leadership sources, practices, and influence. Formal bureaucratic structures do not
necessarily require or facilitate the kind of consensus building, communication,
interaction, and collaboration that we would associate with the planful alignment of
leadership.
60
How Responsibility for Core Leadership Functions Is Distributed
Analyses of our case study data indicate that patterns of leadership distribution
and influence can vary by core leadership practices—not only between schools and
districts, but also for different focal points of activity within a given school. Overall,
leadership is more commonly distributed for developing people and managing instruction
than it is for setting directions and structuring the workplace. This emphasis probably
reflects the influence of external policy, which may limit the freedom of principals and
teachers to set goals or to redesign the workplace. Principals‘ beliefs about their own
expertise and expertise from other sources also affect direction setting, and they are a key
factor shaping the distribution of leadership for developing people and program
management.
For all the schools and districts sampled in our study, state and federal curriculum
policies, standards, and accountability systems influenced direction setting pervasively.
Flexibility for principals and teachers depended greatly on the extent to which state and
district authorities tended to mandate programs or to enable schools to select their own
priorities and programs. Ultimately, however, leadership distribution for direction setting
is shaped by how the principals view and enact their roles within the context of state and
district policies, priorities, and leadership traditions, as illustrated in the following
contrasting examples.
The principal and teachers at Forest Elementary School portrayed themselves as
complying with state- and district-mandated programs (e.g., in reading and mathematics)
and procedures (e.g., curriculum mapping, student data reports). The principal described
herself and the School Leadership Committee as managing the implementation of
externally mandated directions, not as setting directions per se. In contrast, the state and
district did not mandate commercial or local programs at Overton Elementary School.
While district authorities established system priorities for improvement based on results
from state testing (e.g., in mathematics), the principal focused her leadership influence
less on setting or enforcing program or achievement targets for improvement than on
structuring the workplace (e.g., through a Leadership Committee, curriculum teams, and
coaches), facilitating teacher learning (through lesson study and book study teams), and
managing the instructional program (by monitoring teaching and teachers‘ professional
learning plans) in ways that guided teachers to establish their own directions for
improvement, collegially, in the context of state standards, test results, and district
priorities.
Our cases highlight two circumstances in which principals may be more prone to
act directly and less collaboratively to influence school directions for improvement:
First, a principal known to possess specific expertise in curriculum or instruction
may be inclined to press forward on the strength of that expertise. At London Elementary
School, for example, the principal was well known for her expertise in reading. She
decided that children in her school would do better in reading if teachers were to adopt
and implement a wider variety of teaching strategies. She communicated that goal to
teachers, provided training herself and via an external expert, and she monitored teachers‘
61
implementation of new strategies in the classroom and in grade team meetings. At the
same time, she facilitated ongoing improvement efforts mandated at the district level
prior to her appointment (curriculum writing, implementation of a commercial
mathematics program)—collaborating with grade team and subject leaders, specialist
teachers, and trainers provided by the externally developed mathematics program.
Second, a principal who believes that his or her teachers have become complacent
may be inclined to press forward independently, launching efforts to set higher standards
for teacher performance and student learning. At Playa Junior High School, for example,
the principal sought school improvement through an effort to get teachers to be less
didactic in their teaching, to broaden their repertoires of instructional strategies, and to
focus on higher-order learning expectations. She explained her initiative as a strategy to
motivate teachers and to help them improve student performance beyond the
predominantly ―acceptable‖ ratings the school had received under the state‘s
accountability system. She reported that she coached teachers, and made use of external
consultants for in-service training, with this in mind. Teachers at Playa were also
involved in curriculum writing projects in response to a district mandate. The principal
delegated responsibility for leading and managing the curriculum development work to
traditional subject heads and teams.
The general point of these accounts is that patterns of leadership distribution and
influence can and do vary for different dimensions of leadership practice (i.e., setting
directions, developing people, workplace [re]design, and managing the instructional
program)—not only between schools and districts, but also for different focal points of
improvement within a given school. Here, as in many other areas of interest, professional
practice is more varied and complicated than the simplified patterns that often stand out
in scholarly discussions.
Complexity of Leadership Distribution as a Function of Goal Type and Breadth
Leadership distribution patterns are affected by the goals that school personnel
associate with leadership activity. Some goals (e.g., improving student performance in
mathematics, strengthening professional community) are more encompassing than others
(e.g., implementing a specific mathematics program, standardizing student discipline
policy and practices). The more encompassing the goal, the greater the likelihood that
multiple sources of leadership will be involved, and the greater the range of goal-related
activities to which leadership might be attributed.
Contrasting illustrations from Forest Elementary School and London Elementary
School will help to clarify this point. Both schools were involved in implementing new,
district-mandated, externally developed mathematics programs. Student performance in
mathematics at Forest Elementary was below average levels for the state, and the school
was not currently satisfying Adequate Yearly Progress expectations; nonetheless, school
personnel did not explicitly identify improved achievement in mathematics as a goal.
Instead, the goal (one of many program-specific goals in the school) was simply to
implement the district-mandated Grade 6-8 mathematics program. A district mathematics
consultant visited the school weekly to assist math teachers with implementation. At the
same time, two potentially related initiatives were underway. First, the school counselor
62
was preparing student assessment data reports at the beginning of the year, to assist
teachers with lesson planning and tracking student progress. These reports were to reach
teachers a few weeks prior to state testing dates so that teachers could identify students
who might need additional coaching. The principal was reportedly keenly interested in
student performance data, though no one could identify any actions that she had taken to
influence the use of those data. Second, the school technology coordinator had been
trained by district staff to facilitate the implementation of a computerized curriculum
mapping and lesson-planning tool. The interview data for Forest Elementary School did
not indicate that these strands of activity and the leadership sources and actions
associated with them were deliberately coordinated. The result, from a teacher‘s
perspective, was a leadership distribution pattern of anarchic misalignment (see
Leithwood, Mascall, et al., 2007).
In London Elementary School, the principal‘s vision and goals included improving
student success (not limited to mathematics), greater coherence in curriculum and teaching,
and improved teamwork focused on student learning among teachers and with other
stakeholders (e.g., parents). Although the percentage of London Elementary students
performing at or above state standards in mathematics was acceptable (and high, relative to
similar schools in neighboring districts), the principal‘s goals emphasized the success of all
students and the need to boost learning outcomes beyond those touched on by the tests.
Consultants working for the commercially developed mathematics program visited the
school every six weeks to provide implementation training and assistance for the teachers.
Not unlike the faculty at Forest Elementary, London Elementary faculty members were
engaged in a curriculum project (mandated by the district but organized internally) that
involved writing curriculum guides and common assessments keyed to the state curriculum
in core subject areas. The principal arranged for the writers to get input from external
program consultants. She relocated the writers‘ classrooms to ensure that all teachers had
convenient, informal access to them for advice. Not only was the principal committed to
the use of assessment data for identifying and addressing student learning needs, she
delivered data-use training for teachers, and she sat in on grade-level team meetings to
facilitate teachers‘ use of assessment data in their planning of six-week tutoring cycles. She
also arranged for the parent coordinator to get trained in the mathematics program so that
she could prepare ways to show parents how to help their children with mathematics
homework. With the exception of the parent involvement piece, the activities related to
implementation of the mathematics program in London Elementary were similar to
activities at Forest Elementary (external program with in-service training, curriculum
mapping aligned to state standards, assistance with data use). At London Elementary,
however, these activities and varied sources of leadership were linked in a complex,
collective pattern through the principal‘s actions. The overall effort encompassed multiple,
core leadership practices (setting directions, developing capacity, workplace arrangements,
managing instructional program) and multiple leadership sources associated with the focus
on a shared learning goal. The pattern at London Elementary seems likely to produce a
greater impact on student learning in mathematics than the pattern at Forest Elementary,
where the focus was limited basically to program implementation. The leadership
distribution scenario at London Elementary corresponds well to the concept of planful
alignment across core leadership practices (Leithwood, Mascall, et al., 2007).
63
Student Learning and Leadership Distribution
No general claims about the relationship between student learning and school
leadership distribution can be made on the basis of evidence derived from qualitative
research at five schools. We did not find any obvious relationship between alternative
patterns of distributed leadership and state test performance of students in each school
from 2002/03 to 2005/06. We, however, consider two explanations for the apparent lack
of any relationship related to distributed leadership: changes in leadership personnel, and
within-school variation in leadership distribution.
First, any attempt to associate different patterns of distributed leadership with
student learning must take into account the potential consequences of changes in key
leadership positions. Among the five schools, only one of the principals had been in her
position (at Forest Elementary) for more than two or three years. Teachers in London,
Overton, and Gregory Elementary alluded to differences in leadership styles, distribution,
and practices between the previous and current principals. The impact that these changes
in leadership might have on student learning would not necessarily show up in the first
year or two of the principals‘ tenure.
Second, our case study findings highlight the need to be sensitive to the focus and
scale of leadership distribution and action as they relate to student learning. At the microlevel of specific goals and leadership tasks, different patterns of distribution across
leadership sources and actions often co-exist in a school (e.g., improvement in
mathematics and reading performance at London Elementary). It would be a logical error
to infer that leadership as it is distributed and practiced for one leadership scenario, such
as leading a new reading initiative, would necessarily be similar to leadership distribution
across other scenarios, such as changes made in the science curriculum. The influence of
more general concepts and approaches to leadership distribution on student learning
outcomes, such as collective leadership (Section 1.1), shared leadership and professional
community (Section 2.2) are more easily and empirically measurable than specific forms
and arrangements of distributed leadership.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Four implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Efforts to promote greater sharing or distribution of leadership need to
operationally identify specific or desired leadership patterns. Simply invoking the
term distributed leadership is meaningless, given the many different patterns
distributed leadership can take. To understand the distribution of leadership one
needs to explore evidence of actual behaviors and influences associated with core
leadership practices and specific focal points of school-improvement activity.
Principals working in similar organizational structures may enact their leadership
roles and engage in distributed leadership in quite different ways.
64
2. It would be a serious mistake at this point to ―harness‖ any major school reform
effort cart to the distributed leadership ―horse.‖ While we now have a better
understanding of some patterns of leadership distribution as they operate in
practice, evidence about the effects of leadership distribution on schoolimprovement initiatives or student learning is extremely modest. That said, other
evidence (see Sections 1.1, 1.2) does suggest that principals‘ sharing of leadership
with others in planful, yet diverse, patterns of leadership distribution is probably a
worthwhile way to approach improvement in student learning.
3. The task of encouraging more leadership distribution in schools should be viewed,
first and foremost, as the task of nurturing principals‘ dispositions toward such
leadership. As school principals enact leadership roles, the beliefs and orientations
they bring to the task matter a great deal. The extent to which leadership will be
distributed in schools, and the forms it may take, are determined in large measure
by what principals believe and feel about the key factors that come into play:
external and internal influences on school direction setting, sources and uses of
professional expertise (their own expertise, teachers‘ expertise, expertise from
external sources), and participatory or shared leadership.
4. Distributing leadership more widely in schools should not be viewed as a means
of reducing principals‘ workload. Leadership from teacher leaders and external
sources is more likely to be goal- or initiative-specific. Principals, on the other
hand, are responsible for a boundary-spanning role not typically performed by
others, nor picked up by others in the absence of active principal leadership.
Principals are typically involved in a great many leadership initiatives in their
schools, including initiatives for which others have assumed lead roles. Their role
to coordinate or link others‘ leadership efforts is essential.
65
1.4
Leadership Practices Considered Instructionally Helpful by
High-Performing Principals and Teachers
Key Findings

Previous research has identified a set of core practices underlying the work of
successful school- and district-level leaders. About 15 in total, these practices can
be classified as Setting Directions, Developing People, Redesigning the
Organization, and Managing the Instructional Program.

Almost all leadership practices considered instructionally helpful by principals
and teachers were specific enactments of these core practices.

Teachers and principals were in substantial agreement about the leadership
practices they considered to be instructionally helpful.

Teachers generally agreed with one another in identifying helpful leadership
practices. Teachers varying widely in the sophistication of their classroom
instruction nevertheless identified as helpful most of the same leadership
practices.

School level (elementary, middle, high school) had a small effect on the
importance teachers attached to a small number of leadership practices.

Teachers and principals agreed that the most instructionally helpful leadership
practices were: Focusing the school on goals and expectations for student
achievement; Keeping track of teachers’ professional development needs; and
Creating structures and opportunities for teachers to collaborate.
Introduction
In the context of prevailing accountability policies, claims about successful or
effective leadership practices are considered most defensible when they are justified by
quantitative evidence linking the practices to standardized measures of student
achievement. While other sections of this report provide such evidence, this section
emphasizes the insights of principals and teachers. In striking this emphasis, we mean to
extend a line of leadership research113 that has generated many useful insights in the past,
even though its influence on policy and practice is muted at present. Our main question
for the research described in this section is, ―What leadership practices on the part of
113
See, e.g., Blase (1987, 1989).
66
school principals are considered, by principals and teachers, to be helpful in supporting
and improving classroom instruction?‖
Readers might wonder, reasonably, why we have chosen to pursue a line of
research now diminished in influence. There are two closely associated reasons. First,
hard, quantitative evidence cannot, by itself, provide the guidance for policy and practice
that many educators and policy makers now expect of it. For example, the ―grain size‖ of
this evidence is almost always impractically large—that is, the leadership practices this
sort of evidence tests are measured at a level of abstraction not directly implementable by
real leaders in real organizational contexts. Furthermore, the data generated by these
favored forms of research are far less conclusive than is sometimes claimed. The
limitation is usually a function of the constraints on research designs which can be used
in field settings, and the weak causal claims that can be made about data resulting from
such designs.
Second, the line of inquiry we have chosen will enable us to reap certain benefits
associated with mixed-methods research. Every style of research brings with it some
important advantages but also some serious limitations. Synthesizing results across
studies varying in research style offers potentially more robust justification for
knowledge claims.114
Success in creating schools that contribute substantially to student learning
depends in some measure on interaction with the specific social and organizational
contexts in which school- and district-level leaders find themselves working.
Nevertheless, evidence from district, school, and non-education organizations points to
four broad categories of core leadership practices that appear to be effective across
contexts.
We begin Section 1.4 with a summary of these core practices. Then we provide a
synopsis of results from our research about leadership practices perceived by teachers and
principals to be instructionally helpful. Finally, we compare the instructionally helpful
practices identified in our research with the core leadership practices identified by prior
research.
Prior Evidence
Four categories of core leadership practices have been identified by prior
research. These categories are Setting Directions, Developing People, Redesigning the
Organization, and Managing the Instructional Program. Each of these categories
comprises from three to five more specific practices. Similar approaches to the
classification of leadership practices are not difficult to find. Hallinger and Heck (1999)
classify the practices in their instructional leadership model as ―purposes,‖ ―people,‖ and
―structures and social systems.‖ Conger and Kanungo (1998) speak about ―visioning
strategies,‖ ―efficacy-building strategies,‖ and ―context changing strategies.‖ Robinson
114
Brewer & Hunter (1989).
67
and her colleagues (2008) have generated the most recent set of categories, and they are
quite compatible with those described here.
Because we provided a comprehensive description of core leadership practices in
a review of literature prepared as the starting point for our larger project,115 we provide
only a brief summary of the core practices here. Our claim that these practices ought to
be considered essential for successful leaders is based on reviews of empirical research
and on illustrative original studies carried out in educational contexts.116 We also rely on
a synthesis of evidence about managerial skills, compiled by Yukl (2002).
Setting Directions
This category comprises four specific practices: Building a shared vision,
Fostering the acceptance of group goals, Creating high performance expectations, and
Communicating the direction. Overall, it is a category of practices intended to establish
what Fullan (2003) and others call ―moral purpose,‖ a basic stimulant for the work in
question. All of these practices are aimed at bringing a focus to the individual and
collective work of staff members in the school or district.
Developing People
The practices in this category are Providing individualized support and
consideration, Offering intellectual stimulation, and Modeling appropriate values and
practices. Practices of this sort should communicate the leader‘s respect for his or her
colleagues, as well as concerns about their personal feelings and needs (Podsakoff et al.,
1990). Encompassed by this set of practices are the ―supporting‖ and ―recognizing and
rewarding‖ managerial behaviors associated with Yukl‘s (1994) Multiple Linkages
model, as well as Hallinger‘s (2003) model of instructional leadership and the Waters et
al. (2003) meta-analysis. The primary aim of these practices is capacity building,
understood to include not only of the knowledge and skills staff members need to
accomplish organizational goals but also the disposition staff members need to persist in
applying those knowledge and skills. One critically important disposition is individual
teacher efficacy—also a source of motivation in Bandura's (1986) model.117 People are
motivated by what they are good at. And mastery experiences, according to Bandura, are
the most powerful sources of efficacy. Building capacity that leads to a sense of mastery
is therefore highly motivational.
Redesigning the Organization
The four practices comprised in this category—Building collaborative cultures,
Restructuring the organization to support collaboration, Building productive
relationships with families and communities, and Connecting the school to the wider
community—are intended to establish workplace conditions that will allow staff members
to make the most of their motivations and capacities. The organizational setting in which
people work shapes much of what they do. There is little to be gained by increasing
115
Leithwood et al. (2004a).
For example, Hallinger & Heck (1998); Leithwood & Jantzi (2005); Leithwood & Riehl (2005);
Robinson et al. (2008); and Waters et al. (2003).
117
Bandura (1986).
116
68
peoples‘ motivation and capacity if working conditions will not allow their effective
application. According to Bandura‘s (1986) model, people‘s beliefs about their situation
form a source of motivation; people are motivated when they believe the circumstances
in which they find themselves are conducive to accomplishing the goals they hold to be
personally important.
Managing the Instructional Program
This category includes practices that focus on teaching and learning. They are
Staffing the program, Providing instructional support, Monitoring school activity,
Buffering staff from distractions to their work, and Aligning resources.
New Evidence
In this component of our larger study we have sought to ground, illustrate, and
(when warranted) elaborate our understanding of core leadership practices, based on the
experience of teachers and principals. Evidence collected for this component also
highlights certain differences, by school level and by level of teachers‘ instructional
expertise, in the values participants assign to the core practices.
Method
Sample. Evidence for this study derives from a sub-sample of 12 principals and
65 teachers in 12 schools. We selected the 12 schools initially based on one aspect of
teachers‘ instructional practices, assessed during classroom observations collected in the
first round of site visits. We selected six schools designated as High-Scoring Schools
(HSS) from the larger sample because at least 60% of the teachers who had been
observed received a high score on Standard 1 of Newmann's five standards for authentic
instruction (described in more detail below). We selected six additional schools,
designated Low-Scoring Schools (LSS), because at least 60% of their observed teachers
received a low score on the same standard. We selected equal numbers of high- and lowscoring schools to represent elementary, middle, and secondary schools. To be absolutely
clear, then, in this chapter, the meaning of a high (HSS) or low (LSS) scoring school is in
reference to the ratings of the quality of teachers‘ instruction. One might expect that
significant variations in teaching quality across schools would be reflected in significant
differences in student achievement among the HSS and LSS. This was not the case in
these 12 schools, however.
School size in those schools with a high proportion of teachers with highly rated
instruction (HSS) ranged in size from 455 to 1,980 students, with an average of 924
students. There was greater variation in the sizes of schools with a high proportion of
teachers with low ratings of instruction (LSS) (210 to 2,788 students), with an average
enrollment of 1,081. In elementary and middle/ junior high schools, the average
population of students was larger in the HSS than in the LSS (538 vs. 378 in elementary
schools; 763 vs. 549 in middle schools). In the high schools, the average population of
the LSS was much larger (2317) than that of the HSS (1,561). We used percentage of
students eligible for free or reduced lunch as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES). We
69
reported results in three categories: low poverty (less than 18% free or reduced lunch);
mid poverty (18 to 65% high poverty); high poverty (66% or higher free or reduced
lunch). There was an even distribution of schools across the SES levels. When averaged,
the SES for both high- and low-scoring schools was at the mid-poverty level.
We measured the degree of student diversity as the percentage of white students
in a given school: low diversity level = 66% or more white students; mid diversity =
more than 18% but less than 66% white students; high diversity = less than 18% white
students. As with achievement and student SES, average levels of diversity were
approximately the same for both HSS and LSS .
Teacher interviews. We asked teachers about their approach to teaching, the
lessons we had observed, the principal‘s role in guiding and supporting their work,
factors that have the greatest influence on student learning, district influences,
professional development opportunities, the school community, the extent of parental
involvement, and what they would tell a new teacher about what it is like to work at this
school.
Principal interviews. We asked principals and vice principals about the
principal‘s leadership in areas such as student achievement goals, vision for the school,
and student learning; making decisions about instruction; leadership distribution in the
school; professional development experiences for principals and teachers; curriculum and
instruction; school culture; state and district influences on administrators‘ and teachers‘
work in the school; and the impact of parents and the wider school community.
Classroom observations. We conducted observations in Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10, in
language arts and mathematics classrooms. Each observation covered one instructional
period (usually 30-40 minutes). Trained observers assessed the quality of instruction in
the lessons they observed, based on four of Newmann's Five Standards for authentic
instruction.118 This instrument helps observers to rate dimensions of instruction on a fivepoint scale, with 5 being the highest score. Observations focused particularly on the score
teachers received on Standard 1: Higher-Order Thinking (―HOT‖ thinking), described as
instruction that engages students in learning that goes beyond the recall of basic facts.
Teachers received a high score on this standard when their whole lesson involved
students in higher-order thinking (e.g., synthesizing, generalizing, explaining,
hypothesizing, formulating conclusions that produce new understanding). For purposes of
sampling, at least 60% of observed teachers in the six HSS scored either 4 or 5 on
Standard 1. In the remaining six schools, 60% or more of observed teachers scored only 1
or 2 on this standard.
This method for sampling schools assumes that teachers are important sources of
information about what their principals do and how their principals‘ actions affect their
own classroom practice. The method also assumes that variation in the quality of
teachers‘ instruction will be related to variation in the quality of the principals‘
118
Newmann, Secada, & Wehlage (1995).
70
instructional leadership. Apart from addressing our primary research questions, this study
was also a test of the second of these assumptions.
Data analysis. We transcribed all teacher and principal interviews and coded the
transcripts, using the framework for the larger study. Two researchers went through all
the transcripts and cross-checked their analyses for reliability. Classroom observers
recorded specific details about what they saw and heard on a classroom observation form.
Each school‘s level of student achievement was represented by the percentages of
students meeting or exceeding the proficiency level, usually established by the state, on
language and mathematics tests. We averaged these percentages across grades and
subjects in order to increase the stability of scores,119 producing a single achievement
score for each school for each of three years. Our analysis also included an achievement
change score, calculated as the gain in percentage of students attaining or exceeding the
state-established proficiency level from the first to the third year for which we had
evidence.
We begin our report of results by describing the specific principal leadership
practices that both principals and teachers identified as helpful in teachers‘ efforts to
improve their instruction. Then we report the relationship between those practices and the
framework of core leadership practices with which we began.
Specific Leadership Practices Perceived to Help Improve Instruction
A large proportion of both principals and teachers agreed on the importance of
three specific practices:
 Focusing the school on goals and expectations for student achievement (100%
principals, 66.7% teachers).
 Keeping track of teachers’ professional development needs (100% principals,
84% teachers). Although professional development was often prescribed, designed, and
delivered at the district level, principals were involved in managing teachers' attendance
at workshops offered outside the school, as well as planning for, and sometimes
providing, on-site professional development.
 Creating structures and opportunities for teachers to collaborate (91.7%
principals, 66.7% teachers). Principals supported collaboration among teachers by
scheduling times for teachers to meet and discuss how they were working through the
curriculum.
Other practices attracting support from a smaller but still sizeable number of
principals and teachers included the following:
 Monitoring teachers’ work in the classroom (83.3% principals, 37.7% teachers).
Principals mentioned formal classroom observations carried out for teacher evaluation
119
Linn (2003).
71
purposes; they also mentioned less formal ways of monitoring such as classroom visits
and checking lesson plans.
 Providing mentoring opportunities for new teachers (33.3% principals, 26%
teachers). Some teachers and principals referred to programs initiated by the district or
the school to support staff members who were new to teaching or new to the school.
 Being easily accessible (50% principals, 27.5% teachers). Principals spoke about how
they supported teachers' efforts in the classroom in a general way.
 Providing backup for teachers with student discipline and with parents (25%
principals, 23.1% teachers). School safety and the management of students‘ behavior
were of concern to administrators and teachers. Teachers were particularly appreciative
of administrators who could be relied on to back them up teachers when they faced
challenging situations with parents.
Finally, most principals (83.3%) considered Staying current to be a very
important part of instructional leadership, although only one teacher seemed to be aware
of it.
Instructional Leadership Differences across School Levels
Do principals and teachers at different school levels differ in their assessments of
principals‘ efforts to provide instructional leadership? To find out, we ran comparisons.
Results for principals indicated almost no variation, by school level, in the number of
leadership practices identified as valuable. More variation across school levels was
evident in the teachers‘ responses:

Monitoring teachers’ classroom work was identified by only 30% of middle school
teachers, by a slightly larger proportion of high school teachers (34.8%), and by
54.5% of elementary school teachers.

Creating structures and opportunities for teachers to collaborate was identified by
78.3% of high school teachers, 70% of middle school teachers, and 63.6% of
elementary school teachers.

Allowing teachers flexibility regarding classroom instruction was identified by 55%
of middle school teachers, 43.8% of high school teachers, and 40.9% of elementary
school teachers.
Instructional Leadership Differences and Teaching Quality
Were the six principals in our HSS engaged in different instructional leadership
practices than those in the LSS? This question prompted our study initially, and it led us
to sample schools based on the proportion of teachers who were rated high or low on
Standard 1 of the Newmann scale during classroom observations. While the observation
guidelines and processes we used were of good quality, we observed only one lesson for
each teacher, so our evidence here must be considered suggestive and exploratory.
72
Principals and teachers concurred about differences in one leadership practice.
Providing instructional resources and materials was identified as helpful by half of the
principals and 25% of the teachers in LLS, whereas only one principal and 6% of the
teachers in HSS identified this practice as helpful. We also note that teacher respondents
in LSS (38%) attributed notably more importance to Providing Backup for teachers for
student discipline and with parents than did teachers in HSS schools (18%). In short, it
appears from this small sample that teachers in schools where our observation measures
indicated less ambitious instructional practices were more likely to externalize their needs
for instructional support (e.g., resources, backup for classroom management decisions)
than to value support focused more directly on developing their instructional expertise.
Our separate analysis of principals‘ responses also requires acknowledgment of a
sampling problem. The small size of the sample means that percentage differences in the
principals‘ responses are deceptive. A difference of two principals between the high- and
low-scoring samples is evident in the case of only two practices:

Participating in their own professional development (6 HSS vs. 4 LSS)

Supporting community involvement in student learning (2 HSS vs. 4 LSS )
Relatively large differences appeared in the identifications of HSS and LSS for
the following practices:

Supporting teacher collaboration for purposes of instructional improvement (85%
HSS vs. 56% LSS).

Helping to ensure consistent approaches to student discipline (18% HSS vs. 38%
LSS).

Providing teachers with instructional resources and materials (6% HSS vs. 25%
LSS).

Supporting parental involvement in student learning (88% HSS vs. 72% LSS
scoring).
Principals' and Teachers' Judgments Compared with Core Leadership Practices
How do the practices identified as helpful by teachers and principals compare
with our current formulation of core leadership practices? For an analysis pertaining to
this question, we used, on one side of the comparison, only those practices identified by a
sizeable number of respondents (the practices discussed above). Table 1.4.1 lists those
practices in the right-hand column. The four sets of core leadership practices are listed in
the left-hand column.
Two sets of identified practices are closely aligned with core practices related to
Setting Directions. Focusing the schools’ and teachers’ attention on goals and
expectations for instruction and student achievement is part of Building a shared vision,
Fostering acceptance of group goals, and Creating high performance expectations. Four
73
identified practices are part of the Providing individualized support component of
Developing People: Keeping track of teachers’ professional development (PD) needs,
Being easily accessible, Providing backup for teachers for student discipline and with
parents, Providing mentoring opportunities for new teachers.
Only one set of identified practices matched up with Redesigning the
organization. This was Creating structures and opportunities for teachers to collaborate.
Similarly, only one set of identified practices—Monitoring teachers’ work—matched up
with Managing the instructional program.
From these comparisons, two results stand out. First, for several core leadership
practices, there were no analogues among the practices identified by our respondents. Of
the 16 core leadership practices, 7 went unmentioned by teachers and principals in their
identification of practices that are instructionally helpful. We cannot know exactly why
this is the case. One possibility is that principals might have enacted certain leadership
practices that were not visible to teachers. Another is that, in fact, only some of the core
leadership practices have much influence on teachers‘ classroom practice. Still another is
that the principals in our study worked with a relatively narrow repertoire of leadership
practices. Nevertheless, of the leadership practices frequently identified as helpful, one or
more are associated with one of the four categories of core leadership practices.
74
Table 1.4.1
Core Leadership Practices and Practices Deemed Helpful by Teachers and Principals
Core Leadership Practices
Practices Identified as Instructionally
Helpful
1. Setting directions
1.1 Building a shared vision
-Focusing the school on goals for student
achievement
1.2 Fostering the acceptance of group goals
-Focusing teachers' attention on goals for
student achievement
-Focusing teachers' attention on expectations
for student achievement
-Staying current
1.3 Creating high performance expectations
1.4 Communicating the direction
2. Developing people
2.1 Providing individualized support and
consideration
-Keeping track of teachers‘ PD needs
-Providing general support/ open door
-Being easily accessible
-Providing backup for teachers for student
discipline and with parents
2.2 Offering intellectual stimulation
-Providing mentoring opportunities for new
teachers
2.3 Modeling appropriate values and
practices
3. Redesigning the organization
3.1 Building collaborative cultures
3.2 Modifying organizational structures to
nurture collaboration
3.3 Building productive relations with
families and communities /
-Creating structures and opportunities for
teachers to collaborate
3.4 Connecting the school to the wider
community
4. Managing the instructional program
4.1 Staffing the instructional program
4.2 Monitoring progress of students, teachers
and the school
-Monitoring teachers' work in the classroom
4.3 Providing instructional support
-Providing instructional resources and
materials
4.4 Aligning resources
4.5 Buffering staff from distractions to their
work
75
Implications for Policy and Practice
Four implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Instructional improvement requires a school-wide focus on goals and expectations
for student achievement.
2. Principals play a key role in supporting and encouraging teachers‘ professional
development needs. Leaders have a role to play in keeping track of those needs, as
well as providing resources and materials to improve teachers‘ repertoire of
instructional practices.
3. Policy makers and practitioners should avoid promoting, endorsing, or being
unduly influenced by conceptions of instructional leadership which adopt an
excessively narrow focus on classroom instruction. Classroom practices occur
within larger organizational systems which can vary enormously in the extent to
which they support, reward, and nurture good instruction. School leaders who
ignore or neglect the state of this larger context can easily find their direct efforts
to improve instruction substantially frustrated.
4. Principals must include careful attention to classroom instructional practices, but
should not neglect many other issues that are critical to the ongoing health and
welfare of school organizations.
76
1.5
Instructional Leadership: Elementary vs. Secondary Principal and
Teacher Interactions and Student Outcomes
Key Findings

The actions that principals take to influence instruction are of two complementary
sorts. One sort aims to set a tone or culture in the building that supports continual
professional learning (Instructional Climate). The second sort involves taking
explicit steps to engage with individual teachers about their own growth
(Instructional Actions).

Principals whose teachers rate them high on Instructional Climate emphasize the
value of research-based strategies and are able to apply them in the local setting.

Instructional Actions include principals‘ direct observations and conversations
with teachers, in their classrooms and in team meetings.

Setting a tone and developing a vision (Instructional Climate) for student
achievement and teacher growth is present in high-performing (high student
achievement) schools of all grade levels, K-12.

Secondary school teachers rarely report that school-level leaders engage in
Instructional Action; this is the case for their principals, department heads, and
other teacher leaders However, elementary school teachers working with highly
rated principals report high levels of both Instructional Climate and Instructional
Actions.
Introduction
As with the sub-study reported in Section 1.4, this sub-study focuses on evidence
about practices for successful instructional leadership as judged by educators close to the
students—principals and teachers. Section 1.4 relied on evidence from schools selected
for the high quality of the instruction their teachers provided. In Section 1.5, we examine
evidence from schools in which principals received high effectiveness ratings from their
teachers. Five of the 20 schools providing qualitative evidence for this Section were
included in the sample of schools for Section 1.4
77
Prior Evidence
The Changing Role of the Principal from Manager to Leader
Historically, principals traditionally have been responsible for managing a wellrun school. Managing staff, developing rules and procedures, and attending to the general
operation of a building have always been part of the job. However, the conception of
school management began to shift in the late 1970s. Highly influential school
effectiveness studies120 asserted that effective schools are characterized by an climate or
culture oriented toward learning, as expressed in high achievement standards and
expectations of students, an emphasis on basic skills, a high level of involvement in
decision making and professionalism among teachers, cohesiveness, clear policies on
matters such as homework and student behaviors, and so on.121 All this implied changes
in the principal‘s role.
A further shift in the principal‘s role, beginning in the mid-1990s, involved the
expectation that principals should provide instructional leadership. Theorists accepting
this expectation contended that the principal‘s role had changed from management to
instructional leadership.122 What the concept of instructional leadership means, however,
remains vague. For example, studies of how teachers use their time during instruction
have not focused on actions principals take to monitor or set expectations for the delivery
of high quality instruction.123 One purpose of our study is to clarify the concept, at least
in some measure.
Much has been written about the importance of the principal as an instructional
leader.124 Often, however, this scholarship is markedly theoretical or vague (not the same
things), failing to reflect the messiness of what principals do on a day-to-day basis. Much
current research about instructional leadership is focused on distributed leadership125 or
on the leader‘s content knowledge.126 Meanwhile, questions about how and when the
principal might best engage with a teacher to address specific practices used by effective
teachers have been under-researched.
One recent example of research about the link between the principal and teachers‘
professional development is provided by the study of IFL (Institute for Learning)
implementation strategies in three urban school districts.127 That study found that teachers
reported varying amounts of instructional support provided by their principals. Principals
whose teachers rated them higher on an instructional leadership scale had participated in
more professional development focused on instructional leadership than had lower-rated
principals. However, teachers‘ self-reports of their use of certain instructional strategies
120
See, e.g., Brookover et al. (1978).
For a review of changes in principal praxis and practice, see Wenglinsky (2004).
122
E.g., Goddard (2002); Joyce, Calhoun, & Hopkins (2002); and Sergiovanni (2005).
123
Hargreaves (1992); Newmann et al. (2001); and Smith (1998).
124
E.g., Creemers & Reezigt (1996); Hallinger & Heck (1998); and Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond
(2004); Wenglinsky (2002).
125
Spillane (2004).
126
Stein & Nelson (2003).
127
MDRC, 2007.
121
78
were not confirmed in classroom observations by researchers. Furthermore, principals
who were described by their teachers as providing instructional leadership were not seen
to be providing direct feedback and frequent observations of classroom instruction during
the researchers‘ site visits.
Here, similar to the procedure we followed in Section 1.4, we approach the
identification of effective leadership practices using grounded theory to explore the
perceptions of teachers and the actions of principals around instructional improvement.
The theory of action shaping this investigation is based on the belief that high quality
instructional leadership and high quality classroom instruction are linked, and together
they impact students‘ learning. Thus, when either high quality instructional leadership or
high quality instruction does not occur, student achievement outcomes can be variable as
a result.
New Evidence
Our examination of instructional leadership in Section 1.5 is guided by the
following questions.
1. What does instructional leadership look like to teachers?
2. Are teachers‘ reports of instructional leadership similar in substance to what
principals have to say about instructional leadership?
3. Does instructional leadership look different at the elementary and secondary levels?
Method
To address these questions we used both quantitative and qualitative data from
our research. Quantitative data included items from the second teacher survey and student
performance data on state-level achievement tests. Qualitative data were provided by
individual interviews conducted with teachers and principals.
As Appendix A explains in considerably more detail, our instrument for the
second survey of teachers includes 131 items. In that survey, we obtained 3,983
responses from 127 schools. The response rate was 74% for schools and 56% for
teachers. We obtained qualitative data in a subset of 36 schools in 18 districts, randomly
selected from the larger pool of 43 districts. We conducted site visits, using two- to fourmember data-collection teams. During the site visits, we observed 10-12 classrooms in
both elementary and secondary schools, and we conducted individual interviews, using
role-specific interview protocols, with district leaders, school principals, and classroom
teachers. We recorded and transcribed all interviews.
Quantitative data for this sub-study derived from responses to 17 items from the
teacher survey. These items asked about principal leadership behaviors deemed likely, in
previous research, to influence teachers‘ instructional behavior. A factor analysis of
responses to the 17 items resulted in two factors. All 17 items loaded on one of two
79
factors, and no question loaded on both. Ten survey items loaded on the first factor, with
weights ranging from .707 to .867. The other seven items loaded on the second factor,
with weights ranging from .640 to .771. (See Appendix B for the factor analysis matrix.)
To address the possibility that the results of the principal component factor analysis were
due to the two different types of question stems, we also ran a principal axis analysis; this
analysis confirmed the initial results.
As Table 1.5.1 indicates, the 10 items loading on Factor 1 (measured on a sixpoint scale) ask teachers the extent to which their principals create a productive climate in
the school. Items in Factor 1 are about setting a tone of continual professional growth in
the school, where the work culture embraces inclusive decision making and the belief that
we can always do better. We call this the Instructional Climate factor.
80
Table 1.5.1
Top vs. Bottom 20%128 Mean Teacher Ratings per Building on Factor 1
Factor 1
Top
Bottom
20%
20%
(25 bldgs) (25 bldgs)
Overall Mean on Factor 1
4-1 My school administrator develops an
atmosphere of caring and trust.
4-3 My school administrator creates consensus
around purposes of our district mission.
4-6 My school administrator is effective in
building community support for the school's
improvement efforts.
4-7 My school administrator promotes leadership
development among teachers.
4-8 My school administrator models a high level
of professional practice.
4-9 My school administrator ensures wide
participation in decisions about school
improvement.
4-10 My school administrator clearly defines
standards for instructional practices.
4-24 When teachers are struggling, our principal
provides support for them.
4-25 Our principal ensures that all students get
high quality teachers.
4-27 In general, I believe my principal's motives
and intentions are good.
Mean
Mean
t-value
p-value
5.38
3.68
85.68
<.001
5.52
3.5
93.42
<.001
5.35
3.63
76.16
<.001
5.48
3.64
77.72
<.001
5.32
3.65
70.9
<.001
5.58
3.74
85.64
<.001
5.19
3.41
78.09
<.001
5.31
3.77
62.11
<.001
5.07
3.33
81.46
<.001
5.16
3.70
55.09
<.001
5.77
4.48
84.34
<.001
Source: Teacher Survey Round Two
Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Moderately disagree, 3 = Slightly disagree, 4 = Slightly agree,
5 = Moderately agree, 6 = Strongly agree
The seven survey items loading on Factor 2 measure the frequency with which
specific actions with a direct focus on instructional improvement were enacted by the
principal with individual teachers. These questions (see Table 1.5.2) measure the
frequency with which the principal and the teacher have regular, on-going dialogue about
best practices; they ask about the principal being in the classroom, observing instruction,
128
Using Factor 1, we created a ranking of all 127 principals in whose buildings their teachers completed
the survey. There were 25 buildings in the top 20% and 25 buildings in the bottom 20% of the continuum.
81
and providing specific feedback. Factor 2 is about making manifest the climate identified
by Factor 1. We call this the Instructional Actions factor.
Table 1.5.2
Top vs. Bottom 20%129 Mean Teacher Ratings per Building on Factor 2
Factor 2
Top
Bottom
20%
20%
(25 bldgs) (25 bldgs)
Overall Mean on Factor 2
4-13 How often in this school year has your
school administrator discussed instructional issues
with you?
4-14 How often in this school year has your
school administrator encouraged collaborative
work among staff?
4-15 How often in this school year has your
school administrator provided or located resources
to help staff improve their teaching?
4-16 How often in this school year has your
school administrator observed your classroom
instruction?
4-17 How often in this school year has your
school administrator encouraged data use in
planning for individual student needs?
4-18 How often in this school year has your
school administrator attended teacher planning
meetings?
4-21 How often in this school year has your
school administrator given you specific ideas for
how to improve your instruction?
Mean
Mean
t-value
p-value
3.73
2.46
132.01
<.001
3.86
2.69
76.4
<.001
4.27
3.12
70.43
<.001
3.87
2.65
68.82
<.001
3.44
2.27
63.04
<.001
3.97
2.37
119.47
<.001
4.06
2.31
97.35
<.001
2.69
1.79
54.71
<.001
Scale: 1 = never; 2 = 1-2 times; 3 = 3-5 times; 4 = 6-9 times; 5 = 10 or more times
Principals whose teachers‘ ratings placed them in the top 20% on either or both of
the two factors were labeled high-scoring principals; principals whose teachers rated
them low on either or both of the factors were labeled low-scoring principals.
129
Using Factor 2, we created a ranking of all 127 principals in whose buildings their teachers completed
the survey. There were 29 buildings in the top 20% and 30 buildings in the bottom 20% of the continuum.
82
We used student achievement data (mathematics proficiency in 2005-06 on state
tests) as an independent variable to stratify the population of principals so that we could
see whether high- versus low-scoring principals‘ schools cluster differently, based on
their students‘ mathematics proficiency scores. (See the methodological appendix for
details on how we computed achievement scores.) Finally, we stratified the data further
by using building grade level, elementary versus secondary, as the last independent
variable. For purposes of our analyses, elementary schools are grades K-6, and secondary
schools are grades 7-12. Middle schools with grades 6-8 are included in the group of
secondary schools. High- or low-scoring principals, high or low math achievement, and
elementary or secondary level provided a sorting mechanism by which to identify the
specific schools where we could begin an exploratory analysis of the interview data.
Site-visit schools for which we had interview data were distributed across the 127
schools in our complete sample. We included all schools ranked highest and lowest on
Factors 1 and 2, and for which we had interview data, in the analysis. For the analysis, we
used responses to three questions from the interview protocol for the teachers:

What role does your principal play in guiding and supporting your work in the
classroom?

How often does the principal observe or visit in your classroom?

What kinds of feedback or suggestions does the principal give to help you improve
your instruction?
From the interview protocol for the principals, we examined the answers to the
following questions:

Tell me about the last time you visited a classroom. What was the purpose of the
visit? Describe what you were looking for.

What communication did you have with the teacher before, during, and after the
visit?

How do you know that changes are being made in instruction?

How often do you visit classrooms?
We aggregated responses to the interview questions by question, and we analyzed
the responses thematically. From the 127 schools included in the factor analysis, we
analyzed data from a total of 20 high- and low-scoring schools (86 teacher interviews and
20 principal interviews).
Principals’ and Teachers’ Views of What Instructional Leadership Looks Like
Our initial analysis of the teacher survey data pointed to a clear distinction
between principals‘ efforts to create a vision for learning, on the one hand, and what they
83
do to enact that vision, on the other. Setting a tone or culture of high standards for quality
instruction appears to be different from what the principal does in order to be certain that
high quality instruction actually occurs. Given that these two characteristics of
instructional leadership emerged as unrelated factors, we examined them separately in
order to better understand possible reasons for why they were revealed as different from
one another. The second research question, ―Are teachers‘ reports of instructional
leadership similar to what principals have to say about it?‖ is answered as the analysis of
the teachers‘ and principals‘ interviews unfolds. The teachers and the principals were
telling somewhat different stories.
Factor 1: Instructional Climate. Instructional Climate is about influencing the
context in which instruction takes place. Clearly, what gets the highly rated principals out
of bed each morning is what keeps them awake at night: they have a vision and believe
that all students can achieve at high levels. They are focused on providing high-quality
programs. One characteristic that clearly differentiates high-scoring principals from lowscoring principals is that high-scoring principals want to stay in their current schools
until, as one principal put it, the ―mission is accomplished.‖
How do high-scoring principals establish a vision for the school that is centered
on high student achievement? For one thing, they emphasize the value of research-based
strategies. They speak about the amount of time that is invested in developing the
school‘s vision, gathering research information, and then applying it to the local setting.
An elementary principal passionately stated, ―I‘ve researched and researched and done all
I can to meet the needs [of my teachers] because they are very bright.‖ Analysis of the
teacher interviews in that school reveals the research-based approach as being real and
respected by the teaching staff. One teacher said of her high-scoring principal, ―My
principal is very firm in what she believes.‖ In a separate interview, her principal
expressed the vision as being non-negotiable: ―My expectations are high, and [the
teachers] know that.‖ The principal went on to emphasize the importance of having an
open dialogue about the vision for the school. ―I simply put it out there: we‘ve got to kick
it up a notch.‖
The vision for high academic achievement among the principals who score high
on Factor 1 also includes a personal vision. As one principal stated, ―Our ultimate goal is
that our economically disadvantaged children will break the cycle of generational
poverty. [We seek] to challenge the status quo and create conditions in which our
children have the opportunity to be more academically successful.‖ His focus stands in
contrast to that of a low-scoring principal from a different school who emphasized ―the
standards‖ without making any effort to connect the standards to a school-level vision.
The emerging sense from the analysis of the principal interviews is that low-scoring
principals care more about doing their job than impacting lives.
The differences in ratings on items loading on Factor 1 between high- and lowscoring principals are statistically significant in all cases. This difference is at least one
scale step and more often one-and-a-half or more steps. The largest difference was on
item 4-1, which asked teachers about the extent to which their principal develops an
84
atmosphere of caring and trust ( X =5.52 vs. 3.50). And the largest mean rating was on
item 4-27 ( X =5.77), with teachers‘ agreement that, in general, the principal's motives
and intentions are good (see Table 1).
Factor 2: Instructional Actions. In order to turn their visions of high student
achievement into reality, high-scoring principals are actively engaged in providing direct
instructional support to teachers. Instructional Actions in Factor 2 has to do with how the
principal carries out that task. The actions taken by the principal guide and support
teaching and learning according to the goal of enhancing every teacher‘s practices.
Responses from the teacher survey indicate that, in particular schools, teachers saw the
principal as frequently providing direct instructional support.
Differences were significant between high- and low-scoring principals on all
items loading on Factor 2. In every case, the difference between top versus bottom 20%
mean teacher ratings of principals is the difference of at least one scale step (see Table 2).
The largest difference among the items in Factor 2 for the top and bottom 20% of
buildings for perceived principal leadership is on item 4-18, asking how often the
principal attended teacher planning meetings ( X = 4.06 vs. 2.31). And the largest mean
rating is on item 4-14, asking how often the principal encouraged collaborative work
among staff ( X = 4.27). It is particularly noteworthy that the smallest difference and the
lowest-rated item is 4-21, which asked how often the principal has given teachers specific
ideas for how to improve instruction. Teachers working with low-scoring principals
indicated that somewhere between ―Never‖ and 1-2 times per year is the frequency with
which that happens. Even for high-scoring principals, teachers reported that the principal
gave teachers specific ideas about how to improve instruction less than 3 times per year,
on average. Nonetheless, as high-scoring principals implement their mission, their actions
are very intentional and focused on high student achievement. In order for students to
learn and grow continually, high-scoring principals claimed, teachers need to learn and
grow at the same time.
Thematic analysis of the teacher interviews revealed three kinds of on-going
activities or behaviors that clearly distinguished high-scoring principals from low-scoring
principals.
1. High-scoring principals have an acute awareness of teaching and learning in their
schools.
One means by which high-scoring principles gain awareness is collecting and
examining lesson plans. As one principal noted, ―I look at lesson plans and I attend team
meetings.‖ A teacher in that building independently concurred: ―She makes sure my
lessons are in line with the standard course of study.‖ Another teacher explained, ―If there
are any questions on the lesson plans I turn in, she asks me, ‗Why are you doing this? Is
this relevant to what you are doing to meet this objective?‘ ‖ Low-scoring principals
described a ―hands-off‖ approach to instructional leadership. One low-scoring principal
indicated that she delegates all instructional leadership to an instructional ―coach.‖
85
However, this coach has no role in teacher evaluation and is discouraged from providing
any negative feedback to teachers.
2. High-scoring principals have direct and frequent involvement with teachers,
providing them with formative assessment of teaching and learning.
Both high- and low-scoring principals said that they frequently visit classrooms
and are ―very visible.‖ However, differences between principals in the two groups come
into sharp focus as they describe their reasons for making classroom visits. High-scoring
principals frequently observed classroom instruction for short periods of time, making
20-60 observations a week, and most of the observations were spontaneous. Their visits
enabled them to make formative observations that were clearly about learning and
professional growth, coupled with direct and immediate feedback. High-scoring
principals believed that every teacher, whether a first-year teacher or a veteran, can learn
and grow. High-scoring principals described how they ―meet each teacher where they are,
by finding something good in what they are doing, and then providing feedback in an
area that needs growth.‖
In contrast, low-scoring principals described a very different approach to
observations. Their informal visits or observation in classrooms were usually not for
instructional purposes. Even informal observations were often planned in advance so that
teachers knew when the principal would be stopping by. The most damaging finding
became clear in reports from teachers in buildings with low-scoring principals who said
they received little or no feedback after informal observations. One of these teachers
stated, ―I haven‘t had any feedback or suggestions to date.‖ Another teacher considered
the lack of feedback as a signal that ―my principal has been in [my room] enough to
know I am on top of things.‖
Often, the frequency of informal classroom observations by low-scoring
principals decreases as the year progresses. Low-scoring principals focus more on formal,
summative observations, providing limited, non-threatening feedback, primarily to nontenured teachers. As to why the principals did not link their observations to any
discussion about instructional practice, or any attempt at broader efforts to unite teachers
around a vision for the school, teachers said, for example, ―He is supportive of my
teaching philosophy.‖ Insofar as low-scoring principals do not regard the improvement of
teaching and learning as an ongoing, long-term process, a culture for continual learning is
compromised in their schools.
3. High-scoring principals have the ability and interpersonal skills to empower teachers
to learn and grow according to the vision established for the school.
These principals seek out and provide differentiated opportunities for their
teachers to learn and grow. For example, one high-scoring principal led Saturday
workshops for new teachers in order to catch them up to the rest of the staff. Another
high-scoring principal got teaching assistants involved in a workshop designed to help
86
staff members implement a new reading strategy. In contrast, teachers reported, lowscoring principals seldom suggested or supported professional growth opportunities.
Differences in Instructional Leadership between Elementary and Secondary Schools
Do principals in elementary and secondary schools differ in their enactments of
the instructional leadership role? In examining this question, we found some clear
differences and some similarities. Elementary and secondary school teachers‘ perceptions
reflected in their responses to the Instructional Climate items (Factor 1) were similar. All
teachers indicated the degree to which their principals were able to create a culture of
professional growth and an emphasis on high student and teacher performance. However,
elementary and secondary teachers‘ responses to the Instructional Actions items (Factor
2) were quite different, as the evidence in Table 1.5.3 indicates.
Table 1.5.3
Comparison of Teacher Ratings of Principals in the Top vs. Bottom 20% by Building Level
Building Level
Leadership
Instructional Climate
(Factor 1)*
Instructional Actions
(Factor 2)**
High
(top 20%)
Low
(bottom 20%)
High
Low
Elementary
Secondary
16
64%
7
28%
19
66%
11
37%
9
36%
18
72%
10
34%
19
63%
* Chi-Square (1, N = 50) = 6.52, p = .01.
** Chi-Square (1, N = 59) = 4.91, p = .03.
For Factors 1 and 2, the percentage of high- or low-scoring principals differs by
building level; a higher percentage of elementary school principals scored in the top 20%
on instructional leadership on both factors. The reverse is true for the bottom 20% on
instructional leadership, with secondary schools in significantly greater numbers at the
low end.
These data confirm our qualitative results. According to interview data,
elementary school teachers and principals characterize high-scoring principals that are
effective instructional leaders as having a hands-on, direct role in instructional
operations. They confirm that Instructional Climate Factor 1 is reinforced daily or
continually. Teachers in elementary schools whose principals score in the top 20% on
Factor 1 say that ―things [new initiatives] will be supported because they are related to a
greater vision.‖ This point is consistent with findings from many studies of leadership
which have focused on the importance of setting a vision.
87
Elementary school principals who scored high in both Instructional Climate and
Instructional Actions also led schools in which student achievement was relatively high.
An elementary school teacher vividly describes the way in which Factor 1 and Factor 2
interact:
His [the principal‘s] role and the benefit that I see for me is really twofold. One is that he is a strong instructional leader. He knows his stuff. It
would not surprise me if he were walking in one day and could take over
my classroom without skipping a beat. I think that he knows what he‘s
talking about…when I sit down and talk with him about an observation
that he has made, the questions that he asks, the suggestions that he gives,
I know [that these] are from experience and I can trust them. They are the
ones that are going to help move me along the path of instructional
excellence. So he is not just a principal in name, but he knows what he is
talking about. But then on the flip side, he also allows me to be the
professional that I have been trained to be. He is not going to mandate that
I teach a particular way. He is not going to tell me I have to be on this
page on this particular day doing this particular grade-level expectation or
this has got to be my learning target. I don‘t have to be in lock step. When
you are as old as I am, you‘ve been around a lot of different people and
many times that is the expectation. That is one of the neat things I like
about working at this school. [He gives the message that] ‗I‘m going to
force you in a positive way to become better, but I‘m going to allow you
to bring your own personality into the classroom and make that happen.‘
So he is two-pronged on that way [that we are supported].
This combination of instructional climate and action blends on-going professional
learning with a hands-on, direct role in instructional operations. High-scoring elementary
school principals do both effectively.
A different story emerges from our evidence about secondary schools. In the
interviews, secondary school principals repeatedly said that there was not enough time in
the day to complete all their responsibilities, and they told us directly that instructional
leadership ―gets placed on the back burner.‖ Instructional leadership, or planning for it,
takes place, instead, outside the school day. Secondary school principals assert that they
provide instructional leadership through a structural framework of teacher leaders, in
which responsibility is delegated to department heads. In this way, many secondary
school principals believe, they act as instructional leaders even though they are one step
removed from the process.
Data from the teacher interviews reveals, however, that instructional leadership
actions at the secondary school level are generally not happening. ―Administrators in
general observe my classroom 1-2 times per year,‖ one teacher reported. Another stated,
―I‘ve never gotten any feedback that has affected my teaching or that has changed the
way I teach besides broad initiatives that the school wants you to do, that everyone wants
to see happen.‖ From our analysis of the teacher survey we found that Factor 2,
88
Instructional Actions, requires a direct role in instructional operations. As one teacher
noted, ―The only time that I was observed was by an assistant principal. It was the second
year I taught. She was here five minutes…five minutes! And one of the things that she
observed about me was that I start on the left-hand side of the room. Do you call that
feedback?‖
While principals pointed out that they frequently delegated instructional
leadership to department chairs, teachers did not regard that sort of delegation as a source
of instructional leadership. Most teachers described their department chairs as being in
charge of the departmental budget; they also said that teacher leaders have a
responsibility to attend team-leadership meetings called by the principal. We did not find
any evidence in our interviews with secondary teachers that their department chairs or
content-area colleagues were providing instructional leadership in the form of on-going
classroom visits and dialogues about instructional practices. This was true whether the
principal scored high or low on Instructional Climate Factor 1.
Even more surprising is the fact that secondary schools dominate the lowest
achievement cell in our matrix of high- and low-scoring principals. Of the 31 schools in
the bottom 20% in the ranking for all principals on Instructional Actions Factor 2, 20
schools were middle schools and high schools. Put differently, out of a total of 127
schools returning surveys, with 67 of those being secondary and 60 elementary, nearly
66% of all schools with principals scoring in the lowest 20% for taking direct action to
support teachers‘ instructional practices were middle and high schools.
The link to student achievement emerged from our quantitative analysis, with
apparent differences between elementary and secondary levels emerging as a topic
needing further investigation. From the initial sorting of all principals whose teachers
rated them as either high- or low-scoring, there were five elementary schools and five
secondary schools in the top 20% of all schools whose principals were rated high on
Factor 1 and who also had high mathematics achievement. Low-rated principals on
Factor 1 whose schools also had low mathematics achievement numbered three at the
elementary level and eight at the secondary level.
For Factor 2, there were four elementary schools but no secondary schools whose
principals were rated high (i.e., in the top 20% of all schools) and who also had high
mathematics achievement. Principals who rated low on Factor 2 and whose schools were
lowest in mathematics achievement numbered 2 at the elementary level and 7 at the
secondary level. See Table 1.5.4 below.
89
Table 1.5.4
Relationships between Instructional Leadership, School Level, and Student Achievement
Leadership
Factor 1 High
(top 20%)
Math proficiency
Elementary
Secondary
High
(top 30%)
5
8%
7
12%
1
2%
3
5%
4
7%
7
12%
8
13%
2
3%
5
7%
1
2%
Low
(bottom 30%)
High
Factor 1 Low
(bottom 20%)
Factor 2 High
Low
High
Low
Factor 2 Low
High
Low
0
8
12%
0
3
5%
6
9%
7
10%
Note: The number in each elementary or secondary cell is the total number of buildings satisfying the
characteristics of each respective cell. The percent is the number of buildings in each cell divided by the 60
elementary or the 67 secondary buildings in the total Round Two survey sample.
When mathematics proficiency for school year 2005-06 is used as a final sorting
mechanism (independent variable) for the high- vs. low-scoring principals, the greatest
differences, once again, appear at the secondary level. Factor 1 emerges as a significant
positive feature of high-performing secondary schools, and the absence of Factor 1, or
Instructional Climate, is strikingly evident in secondary schools with low mathematics
performance.
Findings for Factor 2 (Instructional Actions) are equally remarkable. There were
no secondary school principals who scored high on Factor 2 whose schools also had high
mathematics achievement. At the other end of the scale, there were seven secondary
schools whose principals ranked the lowest on Instructional Actions and who also had
low mathematics achievement.
Discussion
About the concept of instructional leadership, a clear distinction appeared in our
data, suggesting a missing nuance in much of the existing scholarship. It is a distinction
between principals who provided support to teachers by ―popping in‖ and ―being visible‖
as compared with principals who were very intentional about each classroom visit and
90
conversation, with the explicit purpose of engaging with teachers about well-defined
instructional ideas and issues.
We did find that high-scoring principals emphasized the establishment of a vision
for their schools. In many schools, however, the principal‘s engagement with individual
teachers to ensure that the vision would be realized appeared to not be occurring—
especially not in middle schools and high schools. Some of these principals, mostly at the
secondary level, wrongly assumed that if a vision of high-quality instruction was well
articulated, then high-quality instruction would happen—without much further action on
their part or through the delegation of necessary actions to department heads and other
teacher leaders. Indeed, one major finding is that department heads provide little to no
instructional leadership. They appear to be particularly well-situated to offer leadership to
their colleagues, but that potential for leadership appears nonetheless to be a squandered
resource. Why this might be so is a question worthy of further investigation.
Unsurprisingly, our evidence also points to the continuing preference of many of
teachers to be ―left alone.‖ These teachers typically view the presence of a principal in
their classrooms as unnecessary and sometimes bothersome. Said one teacher, ―I haven‘t
been observed in 17 years, and that‘s OK with me.‖ Another teacher noted that her
principal had previously been a school psychologist, not a classroom teacher, and for that
reason the teacher believed that her principal had an insufficient grasp of the stresses of
teaching and could not ―really give me any realistic suggestions of how to be a better
instructor.‖ Maintenance of the status quo, which for most secondary school teachers
meant not having direct and frequent contact with the principal (or anyone else, for that
matter) about ways to improve instruction, was preferred.
If teachers do not look to principals as instructional leaders, where will they get
feedback about their instruction? Our findings indicate that discussions about teaching
and learning occur informally between colleagues and peers; they occur less frequently in
the context of structured team meetings, content-area meetings, or formal team leaderfollower channels. Infrequent provision of instructional leadership by principals,
especially at the secondary school level, leaves little room for dialogue about teaching
and learning between leaders and followers. Consistent with Supovitz‘s (2006) findings,
our research indicates that under current secondary school structures, authority
relationships tend to discourage candor about problems that secondary school teachers
may be having.
Our evidence did not provide a strong test of the impact of instructional
leadership on student performance. Nevertheless, schools ranked in the bottom of the
instructional leadership continuum for Factor 1 or Factor 2, with student achievement
scores in the lowest 30%, were predominantly secondary schools. It is even more notable
that the raw number and relative percent of secondary schools with low ranking and low
achievement were significantly higher than for elementary schools.
Given that this study identified a random sample of districts across the United
States as participants, and that we have data only for districts that chose to become
91
involved, actual differences between elementary and secondary schools nationwide may
be even wider than those we have discovered. Supportive instructional actions, such as
those constituting Factor 2, may be extremely under-provided in secondary schools.
Furthermore, establishing a culture of professional learning, as identified by the actions in
Factor 1, appears to have greater effect on student outcomes in elementary schools than it
does in secondary schools. Overall, secondary schools appear to suffer from a ―double
whammy‖—low professional growth climate and few actions taken to support classroom
instruction appear to be indicators of lower student performance. Academic achievement
in elementary schools, however, appears to be more sensitive to principals who score low
on either Factor 1 or Factor 2.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Four implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of the study.
1. District leaders should acknowledge, and begin to reduce, ways in which
secondary school principals are limited in their capacity to exercise instructional
leadership by the work required of them in their role as it is currently structured.
District administrators are normally aware of the managerial effectiveness of their
principals regarding immediate tasks and problems. They may also be aware of
principals‘ efforts to create an instructional vision in which student achievement
is an explicit priority. Still, a troublesome pattern apparently persists: secondary
school principals do not, according to our data, interact with teachers frequently
and directly about instructional practice. District leaders need to find ways to help
secondary and elementary school principals work with teachers in order to
improve. They also need to help principals structure their work schedules in order
to find sufficient time to do this.
2. The role of department head in secondary schools should be radically redefined.
Department heads should be regarded, institutionally, as a central resource for
improving instruction in middle and high schools. Our evidence confirms the
managerial role in which many department heads are now entrenched. Relegating
them exclusively to a managerial role amounts to a great waste of a potential
resource for instructional improvement. A radical redefinition of the role would
help school districts solve the historical problem of inertia in secondary schools.
3. Principals need to be held accountable for taking actions that are known to have
direct effects on the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. Creating a
vision for instructional improvement is not enough. Districts should expect
principals to take targeted action aimed at implementing instructional leadership
within each school.
4. Most districts will need to have honest and in-depth discussions with their
principals to develop procedures for systematically and practically monitoring
implementation of instructional leadership. The needs and circumstances of
92
elementary and secondary school principals may need to be differentially
addressed, however the bottom line would have each principal expected to take
specific steps to enact instructional leadership in his or her school.
93
1.6
Poverty, Size, Level and Location: The Influence of Context Variables
on What Leaders Do and What They Accomplish
Key Findings

As the poverty and diversity of students served by a school increase, teachers‘
perceptions of the contexts in which they work become more negative.

As district and school size increases, teachers‘ perceptions of the contexts in
which they work become more negative.

The leadership teachers experience is perceived to be more favorable in
elementary as compared with secondary schools, and in small as compared with
large schools.

Greater district size is associated with increases in shared leadership.

Most features of the context in which teachers work are viewed as more positive
in rural as compared to urban schools.
Introduction
Why do school leaders do the things they do? When they are successful, what
explains their success? Scholarly and professional discussion of these questions has
consistently emphasized context as a crucial factor. As Evans notes, ―school leaders
negotiate multiple contexts and stakeholders, often with competing and overlapping
interests‖ (2007, p. 159). Leadership success depends greatly on the skill with which
leaders adapt their practices to the circumstances in which they find themselves, their
understanding of the underlying causes of the problems they encounter, and how they
respond to those problems. Context may also constrain leaders, particularly when
pressures in the environment are severe.130 In education, pressures arising from rapidly
changing communities challenge leaders as they work to create more effective
organizations—in the presence, for example, of competition from charter schools or
problems created by liberal district transfer policies.
This chapter focuses on three important topics related to context: the socioeconomic and racial mix of students who come to the school, characteristics of the
community and the district, and the school‘s size and complexity.
130
Ruef (1997).
94
Prior Evidence
Several strands of well-tested leadership theory acknowledge the importance of
context. The multiple linkages model asserts a prominent role for ―situational
variables‖—the size of the work group, organizational policies and procedures, the prior
training and experience of members—which mediate what the leader is able to do.131 For
example, the size of the school will have a significant effect on how well teachers know
other teachers; it also will affect the way in which teachers form workgroups or
departments to talk about their work.132 The fragmented nature of professional
communities, rather than size per se, becomes a constraint on how principals try to
organize professional communities to focus on instruction and student learning.
Resource dependence theory argues that organizations are dependent on obtaining
resources from their environments, and that they adapt their organizational forms and
functioning in order to survive in the settings in which they are located.133 This
perspective is consistent, for example, with the assumption that schools in wealthier
settings are likely to have better teachers, better leaders, more actively involved parents,
and better results.134It also argues, however, that leaders are responsible for building
bridges and adapting to the resource constraints that they experience. Schools in poor
rural communities, for example, may be more likely to build bridges to the state or to
other non-local funding sources, given the local constraints they face.135 Charter schools,
which are particularly vulnerable to resource constraints, may need to depend more on
non-educational community members than regular public schools do.136
Institutional theories take a different view, arguing that schools (like other major
social service sectors) are so constrained by public expectations that they have limited
options for becoming very different.137 Public agencies that have limited autonomy,
owing to extensive public oversight, find it difficult to develop their own policies and
initiatives for change.138 This does not mean that successful leadership activity in schools
is impossible, but it does not come easily. Institutional research suggests, furthermore,
that the larger set of social expectations about issues, such as how discipline should be
handled or how much differentiation in curriculum is appropriate, can be more critical
than local conditions.139 In the United States, for example, many parents expect that their
children will have access to Advanced Placement or other advanced courses, and these
expectations may constrain efforts to adopt a uniform, standards-based curriculum for all
students.
131
Yukl (2002).
Lee, Bryk, & Smith (1993); Louis, Marks, & Kruse (1996).
133
Casciaro & Piskorski (2005); Romanelli (1991).
134
Lee et al. (1993).
135
DeYoung (1995).
136
Holyoke, Henig, Brown, & Lacireno-Paquet (2007); Renzulli (2005).
137
Rowan & Miskel (1999).
138
Boschken (1998).
139
Arum (2000).
132
95
Leadership research has been somewhat scattered in its examinations of context.
At one extreme, researchers have claimed that local context trumps all other factors.
Claims of this sort often are based on single or small-number case studies. In contrast,
researchers working from quantitative studies treat contextual variables as factors to be
controlled in inquiries about leadership effects. This approach essentially dismisses
context as a substantive problem. Much less attention has been given to the relationship
between contexts and the practice of education leaders.140 From the perspective of
research design, contexts can be conceptualized as antecedents of leadership practices;
they also can be conceptualized as mediators and moderators of leadership effects on
organizational outcomes.
New Evidence
Equity has been a key focus in our investigations of contexts and leadership. We
have sought not only to learn about leadership that might yield equitable outcomes for
students (although it was beyond the boundaries of this study to look for leadership
effects that were actually ―closing the gap‖); we also have asked whether leadership itself
was equitably distributed among schools. Is the leadership that matters for student
learning—shared leadership and instructional leadership—well distributed so that all
teachers and students have access to its benefits? In particular, does the leadership that
matters vary across contexts:

between schools, depending on the types of students who attend? In other words, do
poorer and wealthier schools have similar levels of leadership focused on improving
schools and classrooms?

by the size and location of school districts? We know from other studies that larger,
urban districts tend to be less effective, particularly for lower-income students; but we
do not know to what extent, or how, leadership effects might explain that pattern of
outcomes.

between elementary and secondary schools? Might variability in leadership account
for some of the differences we have observed in student performance on state
benchmarks, where secondary schools did not score as well as elementary schools?
Method
To address these questions, we examined evidence provided by the first and
second rounds of principal and teacher surveys, each of which contained measures of
leadership behaviors shown elsewhere in this report to be related to student achievement.
Our analysis consisted primarily of analysis of variance, in which we compared mean
scores of teachers in different settings on various leadership measures.
140
Hallinger (1996); Hallinger & Murphy (1986).
96
In these efforts we emphasized our investigation of leadership variables pertaining
to the distribution of leadership within a school. We examined teachers‘ perceptions of
principals‘ efforts to involve others, and teachers‘ descriptions of their own leadership for
improvement (measured by sense of collective responsibility and the development of
shared norms and values). In addition we examined the degree to which leadership is
exercised to promote a focus on improved curriculum and instruction, both at the school
and district level.
Student Differences: Poverty and Diversity
Our results from Round One of the teacher survey indicate that, generally, as
student poverty and diversity increase, teachers‘ experience of shared leadership
devolving from the principal decreases (See Table 1.6.1 below, and C1.6.1 in Appendix
C). We found teachers‘ leadership focused on collective responsibility for student
learning to be more likely present in high poverty schools than in low poverty schools,
but teachers are less likely in high poverty schools to share norms around teaching and
instruction. Also, teachers in higher-diversity schools report that teachers‘ leadership
focused on collective responsibility for student learning is lower than that found in lowdiversity schools, and, again, that teachers in low-diversity schools are less likely to share
norms around teaching and instruction. Finally, the level of diversity is not statistically
related to teachers‘ reports of the principal as an instructional leader (F = 0.23, p = .797;
see Table 1.6.2).
Looking at teacher ratings of school climate, school openness to parents, and
district support (from Round Two of the teacher survey), we find once again that as
poverty and diversity increase, teachers‘ ratings of climate, openness to parents, and
district support decrease (see Table 1.6.1 below, and Appendix C1.6.1).141
Table 1.6.1
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by Poverty
ANOVA
Poverty Level Pairwise
Contrasts†
p
Low
(A)
Medium
(B)
High
(C)
3.88
.021
A>B
10.49
<.001
C>B
C>A
3 Shared Leadership Within the School
9.59
<.001
B>C
A>C
4 Collective Responsibility
7.88
<.001
C>B
C>A
41.73
<.001
C>B
A>C
F
1 Parent Teacher Shared Leadership
2 Principal as Instructional Leader
5 Shared Norms
A>B
141
The level of poverty, however, is not statistically related to teachers‘ reports of district support (F =
1.31, p = .272; Table 1.5.1).
97
6 Teachers‘ Perceptions of Parent Influence
40.72
<.001
A>B
3.96
.019
A>B
52.35
<.001
A>B
A>C
9 Teacher Ratings of School Climate
9.36
<.001
A>B
C>B
(p=.06)
10 Teacher Ratings of School Openness to
Parents
4.43
.013
A>B
11 Teacher Ratings of District Support
1.31
.272
7 Principal as Trusted Colleague
8 Focused Instruction
B>C
A>C
Source: 1 – 8, Teacher Survey Round One; 9 – 11, Teacher Survey Round Two.
†
For the planned pairwise contrasts among the means, the comparisons shown represent two means
significantly different from each other at p < .05, t-test two-tailed. If a contrast is not shown, the two means
in question are not significantly different from each other.
From Round Two of the principal survey, we constructed six variables that
parallel the teacher survey variables or are of conceptual interest on their own. They were
Principal Self-Rating on Shared Leadership Skills, Principal Self-Rating on Improvement
Planning Focus, Principal Rating of District School Improvement Focus, Principal Rating
of District Shared Leadership Skills, District Policies to Support Organizational Learning,
and District Focus on Data-Based Decision Making (see Table C1.6.2 in Appendix C).
On none of the six was there a significant main effect for poverty. Looking at the effect
of diversity, we find a significant main effect for Principal Self-Rating on Improvement
Planning Focus, Principal Rating of District School Improvement Focus, and District
Focus on Data-Based Decision Making (see Table C1.6.3 in Appendix C). On these three
variables, principals in medium-diversity buildings gave higher ratings than those in lowdiversity buildings.142
Location Differences: District Size and Urbanicity
We found a significant main effect for district size on all eight variables from
Round One and all three from Round Two of the teacher surveys (see Table 1.6.2). Here,
large districts have significant disadvantages on all principal and teacher leadership
variables: principal and teacher leadership diminishes as we move from small to large
districts—with, however, a single exception. For shared leadership, there is a clear and
opposite trend: the larger the district, the greater the degree of shared leadership as
reported by teachers. Once again as district size increases, teachers‘ ratings of climate,
openness to parents, and district support decreases.
142
In our examination of the leadership variable on the six context variables from Round One of
the principal survey, we found only a small number of statistically significant main effects, which
is not unlike what we see in Table 1.5.2. Compared with the teachers in their buildings, principals
are not much attuned to their building, district, or demographic context in their experience of
leadership.
98
We found a significant main effect on only two of the six variables on the second
round of the principal survey: Principal rating of district shared leadership skills and
District policies to support organizational learning. On both, principals from small
districts gave higher ratings than principals from large districts (see Table C1.6.4,
Appendix C).
Results also indicate that schools located in larger metropolitan areas exhibit
significant disadvantages regarding the presence of leadership—from principals as
instructional leaders and from shared norms among teachers (Table C1.6.5, Appendix C).
Teachers‘ shared leadership with parents (F = 1.99, p = .113) and teachers‘ collective
responsibility for student learning (F = 1.63, p = .179) were not statistically related to
urbanicity. Teachers‘ ratings of climate and district support diminish as we move from
rural to urban. Teachers‘ ratings on school openness to parents were not related to
urbanicity (F = 1.12, p = .342).
Of the six variables from the second round of the principal survey, only one,
District Focus on Data-Based Decision Making, showed a significant main effect (F = 3.45,
p = .018); principals in urban districts rated it higher than principals in suburban districts.
Table 1.6.2
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by District Size
District Size Pairwise
Contrasts†
ANOVA
F
1 Parent Teacher Shared Leadership
p
Low
(A)
Medium
(B)
High
(C)
7.96
<.001
B>C
A>C
30.76
<.001
B>C
A>C
5.31
.005
B>A
C>B
C>A
4 Collective Responsibility
11.39
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
5 Shared Norms
37.26
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
6 Teachers‘ Perceptions of Parent Influence
22.60
<.001
A>B
C>B
A>C
7 Principal as Trusted Colleague
18.32
<.001
B>C
A>C
8 Focused Instruction
24.09
<.001
B>C
A>C
9 Teacher Ratings of School Climate
27.94
<.001
B>C
A>C
10 Teacher Ratings of School Openness to
Parents
19.67
<.001
B>C
A>C
11 Teacher Ratings of District Support
7.32
.001
B>C
A>C
2 Principal as Instructional Leader
3 Shared Leadership Within the School
A>B
Source: 1 – 8, Teacher Survey Round One; 9 – 11, Teacher Survey Round Two.
†
For the planned pairwise contrasts among the means, the comparisons shown represent two means
significantly different from each other at p < .05, t-test two-tailed.
99
School Differences: School Level and School Size
Compared to high schools and middle schools, elementary schools experience
higher levels of all forms of leadership associated with student learning (see Table 1.6.3).
Teachers in middle and high schools are less likely to trust their principals, less likely to
report that they actively involve parents in decisions, and less active as instructional
leaders in their buildings. Also, teachers in elementary schools report higher ratings of
climate, openness to parents, and district support. At the secondary level, high schools
show a higher ―leadership deficit‖ than middle schools, as well as lower ratings on
climate, openness to parents, and district support.
School size matters, as well (see Table C1.6.6 in Appendix C). For our analysis
we stratified school size (number of students) into quintiles. We found a significant main
effect for school size on all eight variables from Round One and all three from Round
Two of the teacher surveys. As in large districts, large schools have significant
disadvantages on all principal and teacher leadership variables; principal and teacher
leadership diminish as we move from small to large buildings. Also, teachers‘ ratings of
climate, openness to parents, and district support diminish as we move from small to
large buildings.
Table 1.6.3
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by Building Level
ANOVA
Building Level Pairwise
Contrasts†
F
p
Elem
(A)
Middle
(B)
High
(C)
1 Parent Teacher Shared Leadership
64.42
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
2 Principal as Instructional Leader
92.01
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
3.76
.023
71.09
<.001
A>B
115.09
<.001
A>B
6 Teachers Perceptions of Parent Influence
20.17
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
7 Principal as Trusted Colleague
76.38
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
8 Focused Instruction
10.46
<.001
A>B
C>B
9 Teacher Ratings of School Climate
40.65
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
10 Teacher ratings of School Openness to
Parents
26.31
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
11 Teacher Ratings of District Support
9.77
<.001
B>C
A>C
3 Shared Leadership Within the School
4 Collective Responsibility
5 Shared Norms
A>C
B>C
A>C
A>C
†
For the planned pairwise contrasts between the means, the comparisons shown represent two means
significantly different from each other at p < .05, t-test two-tailed.
100
Poverty and District Size
Our results indicate that student poverty and district size amount to a double
disadvantage. Larger schools with high-poverty student populations are most likely to
experience limited leadership—even when we control for the effects of school level and
urbanicity.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Five implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Policies and programs should be developed at the state level to address leadership
deficits. While the leadership deficits we have uncovered cannot account in any direct
way for the achievement gap, they do provide significant evidence that leadership is
unequally distributed among U.S. schools. Because leadership deficits are most
apparent in schools marked by many other disadvantages known to affect student
achievement, it is reasonable to argue that improving leadership capacity in these
schools could also help to boost programmatic and curricular initiatives to increase
equity. In particular, principals in more disadvantaged school settings are likely to
need more professional development and support in their efforts to sustain practices
and behaviors that will increase the involvement of others—teachers and parents—in
the work of improvement. The sharing of leadership increases the total energy
available to support students in learning.
2. Policy makers and educators should avoid ―one size fits all‖ approaches to leadership
development. In their efforts to develop strong programs of instructional and shared
leadership, high school principals work at a distinct disadvantage compared with
elementary school principals. One-size-fits-all models of professional development
for principals (widespread throughout the United States), are unlikely to work well in
complex and difficult high school settings (the same point holds for some larger
middle schools). This does not mean, of course, that principals in elementary and
secondary schools cannot learn from one another; but general leadership models
provide only a start.
3. High-poverty schools, especially large high-poverty schools, need leadership
development programs tailored to their specific needs. These are difficult leadership
contexts that require additional interventions and support. While many whole-school
reform models geared to urban and high-poverty contexts provide excellent
professional development for teachers, few provide anything that directly address the
needs and experiences for principals in high poverty settings. As we have noted in our
analysis of changes in state leadership, support needs to be targeted to schools that are
needy, particularly schools and districts that are not meeting AYP targets.
4. Educators and policy makers should develop models of shared leadership and parent
involvement that are context-relevant. One reason why principals in urban and highpoverty settings tend not to share leadership may be that they operate under
101
conditions in which that kind of involvement is not rewarded. Even where urban and
high-poverty school districts emphasize public engagement, the policies and
preferences tend to ―trickle down‖ to schools only in the form of mandated
representation on school councils—a weak strategy for distributing leadership.
Without better models and support, principals will continue to focus on the daily
pressures of running the school, and not on creating a more democratic climate.
5. Educators and policy makers should develop clearer programs to support instructional
leadership, particularly in secondary schools. Many important studies of instructional
leadership have been conducted in elementary school settings. As valuable as much
of this work has been, we know that instructional leadership in secondary schools
must differ from instructional leadership in elementary schools, simply because high
school principals cannot be experts in all subject areas. Many of the strategies that
seem to work well in elementary schools do not necessarily work as well in high
schools. We cannot expect to see significant improvement until this issue is addressed
more clearly.
102
1.7
A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice
about School Leadership
1. In order for principals to devote more time and attention to the improvement of
instruction, their jobs will need to be substantially redesigned. In many schools this
will require the creation of other support roles with responsibility for managing the
important tasks only indirectly related to instruction. The gap between how principals
spend their time and what they are being encouraged to do has persisted for at least a
half century. By now it should be obvious that structural changes in the work of
school leaders are a pre-condition for the emergence of this significant change:
cajoling, demanding, advocating, explaining, and wishful thinking—typical strategies
used to date—just will not do it. Differentiated administrative staffing—with different
administrators assigned to managerial and academic roles—is one example of
changes that merit exploration.
2. Distribution of leadership to include teachers, parents, and district staff is needed in
order to improve student achievement. School and district leaders should, as a matter
of policy and practice, extend significant influence to others in the school community
as a foundation for their efforts to improve student achievement. Such an expansion
of influence to others will in no way diminish their own influence.
3. District-level and state policy makers must assume the responsibility for nurturing
principals’ dispositions toward the distribution of leadership. Promoting productive
forms of distributed leadership in schools creates new challenges for principals, and
without sustained encouragement and support from outside the school it is unlikely to
become common practice. Distributing leadership more widely in schools is
definitely not a means of reducing principals‘ workload, as has sometimes been
suggested; neither is it likely to diminish the principal‘s own influence. This
conclusion brings us back to our second point about the need for serious
consideration of redesigning principals‘ jobs.
4. Policy makers and practitioners should avoid promoting conceptions of instructional
leadership which adopt an exclusive or narrow focus on classroom instruction. Our
study suggests that successful school-level leadership involves significant attention to
classroom instructional practices, but it also includes attention to other issues critical
to the health and welfare of schools. Furthermore, school leaders can have a
significant influence on teachers‘ classroom practices through their efforts to motivate
teachers and create workplace settings compatible with instructional practices known
to be effective.
5. Significant additional support should be provided for middle and high school
principals to foster the kind of instructional leadership that is “workable” in their
larger and more complex settings. Our data suggest that efforts must be made to
develop instructional leadership capacities in the middle-level leaders in these
103
settings. Secondary school leadership-development initiatives should focus at least as
much effort on improving the leadership capacities of department heads as principals
and vice principals.
6. Educators and policy makers should avoid “one size fits all” leadership development
programs. In particular, more dedicated programs should be developed to: (a) support
instructional leadership in secondary schools, and (b) address the specific leadership
needs of large, high-poverty schools. Principal preparation and professional
development programs should continue to emphasize both the ―softer‖ (emotional)
and the ―harder‖ (behavioral) aspects of leadership.
104
Part Two
Districts and Their Leaders:
How They Foster School Improvement and Student Learning
Preface
Much like an obscure actor cast in a television series that suddenly becomes
wildly popular, school districts and their leaders have recently been rediscovered in the
ongoing drama of school reform. Today the specter of ―Desperate Superintendents‖ lights
up the education screen wherever a child has been left behind. This development stands
in stark contrast to scenarios played out across the United States not much more than a
decade ago, when districts were pretty much ―restructured‖ out of the leadership game by
the attraction of site-based management. In an effort to rid education of its ―stifling
bureaucracies,‖ policy makers in many areas devolved authority for school governance
increasingly to principals (and sometimes to teachers and parents) in regular as well as
charter schools, and these newly empowered authorities gained a dubious opportunity to
spend time dealing with bricks, buses, and budgets. Such restructuring did not do much to
improve the quality of students‘ experience.143 Now districts and their leaders have reemerged, thanks in part to responsibilities assigned to them by legislators. The federal No
Child Left Behind Act, for example, extends accountability for student learning beyond
the school house to the organizations that, in all states, continue to make crucial decisions
about the use of resources for school improvement. The Act also specifies new roles for
school districts in reform activity.
In Part Two, our investigation of leadership and student achievement examines in
further detail certain characteristics of school districts (some previously identified—see
Section 2.3; others introduced here) as they shape the role districts play in initiatives
aimed at change. We also examine how these characteristics interact to yield productive
consequences for students.
In prior research we found some support for bolstering the role of school districts
in reform activity; we also found that the research base for many confident assertions
about that role was relatively thin, consisting primarily of outlier case studies and
examinations of larger data bases that are not representative of U.S. districts as a whole.
In particular, prior research fails to provide consistent evidence that links district actions
to student learning. Given the central role school districts play in American education,
this is a serious gap. Taking note of it, we made the link between district action and
student learning a main focus. Our design focuses on providing evidence, direct or
indirect, about the effects of district policies and practices on schools, classrooms, and
student learning.
143
(Borman et al., 2003).
105
Section 2.1 extends the analysis of collective leadership presented in Section 1.1
to include district efforts to involve community members and parents. Sections 2.2 and
2.3 also build on earlier sections, examining ways in which districts contribute to the
development of individual and collective efficacy, which we show to be important
predictors of student achievement. In section 2.4, we move to a topic that has rarely been
examined, looking at principal turnover and its effects on teachers and students. In
section 2.5 we examine ways in which districts use data to improve student learning. In
section 2.6 we examine district policies and practices as they foster or do not foster
improvement in curriculum and instructional programs across districts and within the
individual schools.
Although we will take up the question of how our findings can be translated into
recommendations for policy and practice in subsequent sections, we can state our overall
finding here: School districts matter. District policies and practices affect student
achievement. Our elaboration follows.
106
2.1
How Districts Harness Family and Community
Energy for School Improvement
Key Findings

Districts promote participatory democratic structures in schools by creating
policies and expectations for participation on the part of a wide array of people
and groups outside of the school.

Districts have more difficulty creating leadership teams that include diverse
families and community members in more, as compared with less, affluent
communities.

Outside of establishing traditional site-council structures, Districts typically do
not have a strong impact on principals‘ openness to community and parental
involvement.

Schools with more community stakeholders on their site councils or building
leadership teams tend to have principals who are more open to community-level
involvement.

Student achievement does not seem to be influenced positively by principals‘
openness to community involvement.

Student achievement is higher in schools where teachers share leadership and
where they perceive greater involvement by parents.
Introduction
The review of research we cite in the Preface to Part Two makes no mention of
district efforts to engage families and the broader community more fully in school
improvement work. Yet family and community engagement has been an active research
area for many years. Considerable evidence links family background to student
achievement—a sufficient warrant for attention in its own right. Our interest, however,
arises also from democratic assumptions underlying the organization of the U.S. school
system and from the traditional resistance of schools to greater community-level
participation. In light of this background, we examine five questions about family and
community engagement:
 What influences the diversity of membership on school-site councils or leadership
teams?
107
 What factors influence principals‘ openness to parental and community
involvement?
 Is a principal‘s openness to community involvement related to student learning?
 How are participatory and collective leadership structures related to student
learning?
 Which district policies and practices foster or inhibit family and community
engagement aimed at increasing student learning?
Prior Research
Five strands of prior evidence informed our approach to this research: (1)
evidence linking family engagement with student learning, (2) studies of recent efforts to
create more democratic or participatory structures in schools, (3) studies of changing
power structures in schools, (4) evidence about collective leadership, with a particular
emphasis on the inclusion of people not in designated or positional leadership roles, and
(5) studies about district and school characteristics that may support or inhibit family and
community participation.
Family Engagement and Student Learning
Findings from two meta-analyses by Jeynes (2003 and 2007) add credible
arguments for the case of family involvement leading to increased student achievement.
The first (Jeynes 2003) concluded that family involvement affected academic
achievement for the minority groups under study, but in different ways. For African
Americans, effect sizes were positive for parenting style and for family attendance at
various school events, but those variables were not statistically significant for other
groups. The second (Jeynes 2007), focusing exclusively on studies of urban secondary
school students, found that family involvement had a significant effect on student
achievement for minority and white students.
―Subtle‖ aspects of family involvement—parenting style and parental
expectations, for example—may have a greater impact on student achievement than more
―concrete‖ forms such as attendance at school conferences or enforcing rules at home
regarding homework.144 Some researchers, policy makers, and practitioners argue that
these subtle forms of family involvement are not easily influenced by schools.145 In
contrast, we argue that the value of creating participatory structures in schools lies in its
potential for increasing family and community members‘ sense of engagement in
144
Fan (2001); Feuerstein (2000); Jeynes (2007); Lee & Bowen (2006); Sanders (1998); and Sheldon
(2003).
145
Other factors affecting family involvement in schools include race, SES, family size, parent selfefficacy, geographic location of school, educational attainment of parents, and grade level of child. See
Bandura (1996); Crispeels & Rivero (2001); Epstein & Dauber (1991); Fan (2001); Feuerstein (2000);
Grolnick et al. (1997); Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1995); and Lee & Bowen (2006).
108
children‘s education, and, as a consequence, augment and reinforce the subtle behaviors
responsible for improved outcomes.146
Creating Participatory or Democratic Structures
In the last two decades, some educators and community members have shown an
interest in creating more democratic structures within and alongside schools—by
establishing and using various advisory councils, for example. This movement may be a
reaction against a longstanding school climate within which families and community
members—some more than others—have been viewed as outsiders, not as true members
of the school community. In this movement, some researchers saw democracy in action
as power devolved from the state to local schools, sometimes culminating in outside
stakeholder involvement.147 Many contentions about site-based management, community
control of schools, community schools, and school choice were based on democratic and
communitarian theory.148 Some researchers and policy makers influenced by economic
theory have begun to view the relationship between schools and communities differently.
Families and community members are clients or customers, not outsiders, according to
this point of view, and schools should be accountable to their clients (see Riley & Louis,
2004, p. 9). Other observers remain suspicious of the community-as-client view, for
various reasons. A school that is accountable to the community, in our view, reflects local
values and customs, has indicators of success that are visible and well-communicated to
the public, and allows parents to choose schools if they are not satisfied with the
service.149
Changing Power Structures in Schools
Site-based management initiatives rarely challenge existing power structures or
alter decision-making patterns in schools.150 Instead, these initiatives work to incorporate
outsiders into the school‘s frame of reference.151 152 Even where family and community
involvement programs have been mandated, observers have questioned the fidelity of
implementation efforts to mandated plans. Since it is easier for traditional power
structures to remain in place when environmental factors remain ―stable and
congenial,‖153 giving parents and teachers authority to make some school decisions may
in some respects reinforce the status quo.154
In an examination of the contested nature of schools in a pluralistic society,
Abrams (2002) found that ―school interventions seeking to change established practices
and ideologies concerning parental involvement can become contested terrain, . . .
exposing competing needs and concerns about children‘s education‖ (p. 384). However,
146
Sheldon (2005).
Anderson (1998, 1999); Schuller et al. (2000).
148
Anderson (1998, 1999); Crowson & Boyd (2001); Driscoll (1998); Keith (1999); Lee et al. (1993); and
Riley & Louis (2004).
149
Anderson (1998, 1999); Mawhinney (2004); and Riley & Louis (2004).
150
Hess (1999); Malen (1994, 1999); and Malen & Ogawa (1988).
151
Anderson (1998).
152
This finding is challenged by some European studies, e.g., Møller (2006).
153
Malen & Ogawa (1988, p. 265).
154
Hess (1999); Malen (1994, 1999); Malen & Ogawa (1988); and Tschannen-Moran (2001).
147
109
Abrams also suggests that schools can bring competing groups together by developing
collaborative structures and involving families in shared decision making, thus building
social capital. The model of community development as a mechanism to link schools and
communities is a facet of social capital theory; its importance in education policy and
research has increased in the last fifteen years.155
About participatory structures and efforts to develop them, there is often a wide
gap between rhetoric and practice. Cognizant of this gap, several scholars have
investigated factors that actually make a difference in these efforts. For example,
Miretzky argues that fostering communication between teachers and families can help to
create a democratic community and support school improvement. While the parents and
teachers Miretzky studied did not espouse the value of democratic communities per se,
the values they did espouse—investment in the school community, direct and honest
communication, trust, mutual respect and mutual goals—―all reflect the ‗communication
requirements‘ of such communities‖ (2004, p. 814). According to this view, some
teachers and parents desire interaction within a democratic community, but they lack the
language necessary to articulate that interest.
Collective Leadership
As we explain in section 1.1, collective leadership refers to influence exercised by
school leaders and families and other stakeholders. The political argument for involving
parents and other community members more substantially carries along with it an explicit
challenge to the traditional, hierarchical leadership and power structures in schools.156
According to Leithwood and Prestine (2002), the policies and reforms that call for
decentralized decision making rest on certain important assumptions about the role of the
principal and other school leaders. The community-control model of site-based
management ―assumes that the school leader‘s role is to ‗empower‘ these people and to
actively encourage the sharing of power formerly exercised by the principal. ...School
leaders, it is assumed, will act as members of teams rather than sole decision-makers,
teaching others how to make defensible decisions and clarifying their decision
responsibilities‖ (p. 46). In this respect, strong leadership will be needed, somewhat
paradoxically, to help establish collaborative partnerships and to foster shared decision
making.157 The beneficial outcomes, Leithwood and Pristine argue, will include better
decisions and, among participants, an enhanced sense of ownership in and responsibility
for the outcomes of those decisions.
District and School Characteristics That Support or Inhibit family and Community
Participation
While principals play a crucial role in school-improvement initiatives, the school
culture or climate is also crucial. Important characteristics of school culture include a
caring atmosphere, significant family volunteering, and a supportive environment for
teachers‘ work.158 Widespread trust among participants promotes collaboration within
155
Mawhinney (2004).
Anderson (1999) ; Keith (1999).
157
Goldring & Sims (2005); Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach (1999).
158
Bauch & Goldring (2000).
156
110
schools and communities.159 Parental involvement benefits students, particularly; it also
seems to benefit families, enhancing their attitudes about themselves, their children‘s
schools, and school staff members.160
Some principals and teachers assume that low levels of parental involvement
reflect low levels of interest in the education of the children in question. The evidence
does not support this view. Parents generally—inner-city and low-income parents as well
as others—care deeply about their children‘s education.161 Their level of interest is not
always readily apparent. Some may not know how to be involved helpfully in their
children‘s education.162 Others may feel constrained by reticence arising from an
inhibiting sense of class differences. For reasons like these, educators face a special
challenge in seeking to foster increased family involvement. The policies and programs
currently targeted to that task are, in many districts, inadequate.163
New Evidence164
Method
We obtained data for this section from responses to the first round of principal
and teacher surveys and from state-mandated measures of students‘ achievement in
mathematics. Also, in order to compose three district-level vignettes, we analyzed data
from interviews we conducted over three years with district and school staff members
and community stakeholders. The surveys posed questions about principals‘ and
teachers‘ perceptions of parental and community involvement in schools; they also asked
about stakeholders‘ influence in schools, the composition of leadership teams, and
principals‘ and teachers‘ perceptions of parent and community openness to and
involvement in promoting student learning. A total of 260 administrators returned the
principals‘ surveys (157 principals and 103 vice principals), for a response rate of 74.2%.
Sixty-seven percent of teachers completed their surveys (a total of 4,491). The present
analysis, however, focuses only on the principals‘ responses (n=157).
For all survey items we used a six-point response scale (from strongly agree to
strongly disagree). We calculated separate scales for each survey (all met conventional
standards of reliability); then we used step-wise regression to analyze the principals‘ and
teachers‘ surveys separately. Factors measured by the principals‘ survey included the
following:
159
Tschannen-Moran (2001).
Smrekar & Cohen-Vogal (2001).
161
Patrikakou et al. (1998).
162
Epstein & Dauber (1991).
163
Kruse & Louis (in press).
164
A full report of this study is available in Gordon & Louis (in press). Linking parent and community
involvement with student achievement: Comparing principal and teacher perceptions of stakeholder
influence. American Journal of Education.
160
111

Principals’ openness to community involvement. All the items in this scale reflected
our concept of participatory democratic structures—i.e., community members are
actively engaged in planning and setting school-improvement goals.

District support for community and parent involvement. This scale measured the role
of the district in helping or hindering principals in their efforts to obtain greater
community and parental involvement.

Principals’ perceptions of parental influence. This scale measured and the extent to
which parents were involved in decision making and the perceived level of influence
parents exercised in setting directions for school-improvement efforts.
We first examined elected versus non-elected site councils in order to distinguish
between those that reflected democratic participatory structures and those that did not.
(Although some schools refer to their site councils as ―building leadership teams‖, for
purposes of clarity, we will use the term ―site council‖ to refer to all such groups of
people who participate together to provide guidance and occasional decisions as a means
of local leadership at the building level.) We focused on formally elected school site
councils that were diverse (i.e., more than three groups of people represented on the
teams, meaning those that included parents and community members). Forty-three
percent of the teams were elected, and elected teams were more diverse than non-elected
teams.
For the first analysis of data from the principal survey, our outcome variables
included (1) the diversity of membership on school-site councils, and (2) the level of
principals‘ and teachers‘ openness to community and parental involvement in schools.
For the analysis from the teacher survey, four variables were measured:

Parent/teacher collective leadership. In schools demonstrating collective leadership,
principals and teachers are more likely to collaborate with parents and the
community.165

District and school leadership influence. Using this variable we measured the degree
to which administrators, at the school and district level, retained control over decision
making.

Teachers’ perceptions of parental influence. Using this variable we explored the
relationship between teachers‘ perceptions of parental influence and student learning
outcomes.

Teacher influence: Using this variable we distinguished between the influence of
parents, administrators, and teachers in school decisions.
165
E.g., Goldring & Sims (2005) ; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2000).
112
We measured student achievement by reference to the school‘s performance on
the 2005-2006 state tests in mathematics. We used poverty (the number of students
receiving free or reduced-price lunches) and type of school (elementary and secondary)
as control variables for all of our analyses because several studies examining community
involvement specifically found them to be significant influences on parental involvement
in schools. SES is also a significant factor in predicting student achievement.166
Influences on the Diversity of School-Site Councils
In our first analysis we examined variables associated with the diversity of
membership on school-site councils. We sought to determine which district and school
leadership factors were associated with diversity. Using diversity of membership on the
site council as a dependent variable, we used linear regression to examine the relationship
between diversity and district support for community involvement, controlling for poverty
level.
Table 2.1.1
Factors Associated with Diversity of Membership on School-Site Councils
(N=157)
Predictors
(Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
District Support
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig
.260
3.648
2.656
.000
.009
.227
2.324
.022
F = 5.092
R²
Adjusted
R²
.092
.074
* Significant at the .05 level
Results show that poverty level and district support for community involvement
explain only 9% of the variance in the diversity of membership on school-site councils.
Nevertheless, diversity of membership on site councils is fostered by district support for
community participation and we found high-poverty schools are more often diverse in
site-council membership than other schools are.
Influences on Principals’ Openness to Parent and Community Involvement
In our second analysis, we examined which factors associated with principals‘
openness to community involvement. With principals’ openness as our dependent
variable, we used step-wise regression to assess the degree to which our independent
variables (district support, site council diversity) accounted for variance in our dependent
variable. Again, we used free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and school level as
controlling variables.
166
Henderson & Mapp (2002); Ho Sui-Chu & Willms (1996).
113
Table 2.1.2
Factors Associated with Principals’ Openness to Community Involvement
(N=157)
Predictors
1 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
Standardized
Coefficients
.027
t
Sig
16.073
.274
.000
.785
R²
Adjusted
R²
.001
-.009
.095
.068
.096
.059
F = .075
2 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
District Support
Site Council Diversity
.017
2.130
.172
.036
.864
.169
.230
1.673
2.292
.097
.024
F change = 5.159*
3 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
District Support
Site Council Diversity
Elementary or Secondary School
F change = .124
.025
1.661
.224
.1000
.808
.171
.231
.035
1.684
2.289
.352
.095
.024
.726
* Significant at the .05 level
Our results yielded four findings. First, poverty level does not influence
principals‘ openness to community involvement. Second, site council diversity is the only
statistically significant variable associated with principals‘ openness to community
involvement; it accounts, however, for only about 9% of the variance. Third, district
support is not significantly related to community involvement, and it has only a limited
influence on principals‘ openness to community involvement. Fourth, school level is not
associated with principals‘ openness to community involvement.
Factors Related to Student Achievement
Using data from surveys of principals, we examined factors related to student
achievement in mathematics. In these analyses we used site council diversity, district
support, and principals’ openness to community involvement as independent variables;
again, we used poverty and school level as control variables.
114
Table 2.1.3
Principal Survey:
Factors Associated with 2005-2006 Student Achievement Scores in Math at the Building
Level
(N=157)
Predictors
1 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
Standardized
Coefficients
-.416
t
Sig
17.617
-4.413
.000
.000
R²
Adjusted
R²
.173
.164
.210
.175
.268
.227
F = 19.471**
2 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
Site Council Diversity
District Support
Principals‘ Openness to Community
Involvement
-.405
5.196
-4.009
.000
.000
.087
.096
-.180
.856
.970
-1.836
.394
.335
.070
F change = 1.419
3 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
Site Council Diversity
District Support
Principals‘ Openness to Community
Involvement
Elementary or Secondary School
F change = 7.018*
-.496
5.973
-4.784
.000
.000
.099
.078
-.159
1.004
.811
-1.662
.318
.419
.100
-.255
-2.649
.010
* Significant at the .05 level
**Significant at the .001 level
Our results show that poverty level accounts for 17% of the variance in student
achievement in mathematics. With leadership variables factored in, we find that site
council diversity, district support, and principals’ openness to community involvement do
not relate significantly to student achievement.
In short, even if principals are open to community involvement and establish
diverse school site councils, no significant effect on achievement will necessarily follow,
over and above the effect of contextual factors (poverty and school level). This finding is
consistent with results from prior research: simply changing structures, or being open to
involvement, does not necessarily lead to increased student learning.
115
Participatory and Collective School Leadership Structures and Student Learning
Using data from surveys of teachers, we analyzed the relationship of
Parent/teacher collective leadership, district/school leadership influence, and teachers’
perceptions of parental involvement with student achievement in mathematics. Again, we
used poverty and school level as control variables.
Our results show that poverty level had a statistically significant inverse
relationship with achievement in mathematics, accounting for 21% of the variance. With
participatory and shared leadership variables factored in, we found that parent/teacher
collective leadership and teacher’s perceptions of parental influence were positively and
significantly associated with achievement in mathematics, accounting for 23% of the
variance. This finding is consistent with findings from prior research. If teachers have
more influence in decision making and practice shared leadership, they believe parents
are also more likely to have influence and be involved actively in school improvement
efforts.167 Since other research has confirmed this relationship, we kept both constructs in
the remaining analyses.
Finally, while school level had a significant, inverse relationship with student
achievement in mathematics, district/school leadership and teacher influence were not
significantly related to achievement. These findings are consistent with findings from
prior research on site-based management168 which found that even when schools are
charged with creating collective leadership and asked to be more inclusive with parents
and community members, principals and teachers, nevertheless, maintain decisionmaking control.
Our results show that where teachers‘ perceive greater involvement by parents,
and where teachers indicate that they practice shared leadership, student achievement is
higher. The relationships here are correlational, not causal; nevertheless, it appears that
direct, active involvement by parents (as perceived by teachers) can have an impact on
student learning. Although Feuerstein‘s (2000) research indicates that schools have less
influence over ―subtle‖ forms of parent involvement, we found that teachers and
principals have more influence on parental and community involvement, and its link to
student learning, than others have thought. Because parental involvement is linked to
student achievement by correlation, we assert that teachers and principals can play a role
in increasing student learning by creating a culture of shared leadership and
responsibility—not merely among school staff members, but collectively within the
wider community.
167
168
Tschannen-Moran (2001).
Hess (1999); Malen (1994, 1999); Malen & Ogawa (1988).
116
Table 2.1.4
Teacher Survey:
Factors Associated with 2005-2006 Student Achievement Scores at the Building Level
(N=4,491)
Predictors
1 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
Standardized
Coefficients
-.458
t
Sig
-.450
21.916
-28.950
.000
.000
.097
.004
.020
.058
5.468
.269
1.059
3.276
.000
.788
.290
.001
F change = 20.771**
3 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
Parent/Teacher Shared Leadership
District/School Leadership
Teacher Influence
Teachers‘ Perceptions of Parental
Involvement
Elementary or Secondary School
F change = 277.955**
Adjusted
R²
.209
.209
.229
.228
.290
.289
117.657 .000
-29.331 .000
F = 860.303**
2 (Constant)
Percent of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Students
Parent/Teacher Shared Leadership
District/School Leadership
Teacher Influence
Teachers‘ Perceptions of Parental
Involvement
R²
-.544
28.190
-34.111
.000
.000
.054
.011
.021
.043
3.159
.683
1.153
2.530
.002
.494
.249
.011
-.268
-16.672
.000
**Significant at the .001 level
On first glance, some of our results appear to be at odds with others. Principal‘s
reports of their efforts to promote community involvement are not related to student
achievement, but reports about parental involvement by teachers located in the same
schools suggest a significant influence. One explanation may be that principals are
simply poor reporters of their own behavior. They may inflate their reports, given the
assumption that they are supposed to work on promoting community involvement.
Teachers, in contrast, were asked to report on the indirect results of their principal‘s
efforts and the school culture in general, not on their own behavior; in their task, they
may have been more forthright.
Response bias, however, is not the only possible explanation. It could also be the
case that where teachers experience shared decision making, they feel more
117
―empowered‖ as Leithwood and Prestine (2002) have suggested, and are therefore more
willing to engage parents as participants in their children‘s education. In addition,
teachers who feel empowered may be more willing to accept parental and community
input in setting directions for school-improvement programs. In other words, a more
professionalized and influential group of teachers may seek to increase the resources
available to improve student achievement (including parental involvement and influence).
This possibility stands in contrast to an assumption made by some critics of
professionalism—i.e., that professionalized teachers will tend to claim exclusive
knowledge and expertise. If it is the case that professionalized teachers are more likely to
seek parental and community involvement, then the dynamic in education resembles a
current movement within the medical profession, where many practitioners now seek to
involve patients as partners in making complex decisions about health care.
Still another explanation is that teachers might focus on the consequences of
principals‘ efforts to promote community involvement, rather than the structural
components intended to provide for community involvement. This explanation could
account for the unexpected finding that our initial factor analysis produced a variable that
includes measures of both parental and teacher influence within the school. By itself, this
finding suggests that principals, who have a great deal of influence over school culture,
may exercise a subtle and indirect influence on student achievement insofar as they
increase openness and make schools more democratic. This possibility is compatible with
the assumption that it is not the structures that make a school democratic, but the
everyday actions that encourage or discourage the flow of ideas and influence across
institutional boundaries.
The District’s Role
The results of our quantitative analyses suggest that districts can play a role in
promoting participatory democratic structures in schools by creating policies and
expectations for participation by a wide array of peoples and groups. In addition, districts
can help schools create diverse school-site councils, at least in more affluent
communities. In examining the factors influence principals‘ openness to community and
parental involvement, we found that although district support for more involvement does
correlate with the diversity of membership on site councils, districts do not have a strong
impact on how principals‘ openness to community and parental engagement outside the
traditional site councils. This finding suggests that districts are not creating the climate or
expectation for schools to be open to community and parental involvement. The district
role has been primarily to create policies that demand a certain level of outside
participation in decision making. But these policies have only a weak and indirect effect
on creating open, participatory environments in schools.
However, when schools have more diverse representation on site councils,
principals appear to be more open to community involvement. This finding is not
surprising; it suggests that in schools where parents and other community members hold
significant leadership roles, principals are more open generally to outside influences. Our
118
findings are also consistent with research that says leaders can and often do play a
significant role in the level of parent and community involvement in schools.169
Overall, two generalizations stand out regarding district leadership aimed at
fostering democratic participation in schools. First, district policy—e.g., setting
expectations for who should be involved in making decisions—does influence the range
of people who participate in school decisions. Second, district culture appears to have a
limited influence on parental and community involvement at the school level.
Although district efforts to encourage widespread involvement have limited
effects at the school level, and formal participation by parents and community members
has limited impact on the achievement of students in the school, it does not follow that
these policies should be abandoned. They may have symbolic value, creating effects that
we have not measured. Our study does hint that as principals have more experience with
community interaction (for example, through site councils with diverse representation),
they become more open to influence in daily practices in their buildings.
Case Vignettes:
District Policies and Practices for Parent and Community Involvement
(all district and persons’ names are pseudonyms)
In order to examine our quantitative findings more thoroughly, we turned to our
qualitative data for an in-depth look at district level policies and practices intended to
engage parents and community members in school-improvement efforts and, specifically,
efforts to increase student learning. In exploring our qualitative data, we examined
district policies and practices that may foster or inhibit parental and community
engagement aimed at increasing student learning. From this examination we have
developed the following vignettes to illustrate what three school districts are doing to
foster parental and community engagement. The three districts are located in different
states and regions of the country. They range in size from 25,000 to 38,000 students,
from 22% to 42% minority students, and from 33% to 42% of students who qualify for
free or reduced-price lunches.
Glenhurst School District: A Commitment to Being Visible and Listening to
Community Concerns. Glenhurst School District, located in a western state, is composed
of 47 schools with a total enrollment of approximately 38,000 students. These students
are about 42% minority and 33% free or reduced-price lunch students. When the current
superintendent, Brad Cameron, was hired in 2003, he exhibited openness to hearing from
all groups and a willingness to collaborate in pursuit of his primary goal: to increase
student achievement in reading and mathematics. One administrator described the culture
of the district as ―engaged,‖ ―lively,‖ but ―a little chaotic,‖ in a good way. Superintendent
Cameron worked to change the culture of the district. For example, several district-level
administrators in Glenhurst said that the district went through a lengthy process of
169
Anderson (1998); Goldring & Sims (2005); Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach (1999); and Opfer &
Denmark (2001).
119
―sense-making‖ and self-organizing, focused on district goals and emphasizing
community outreach. With these efforts, the culture of the district changed, according to
the Board Chair, because of Superintendent Cameron‘s collaborative style, visibility, and
ability to communicate with the public.
Superintendent Cameron communicates his primary goal by being visible in the
schools, where he holds regular, open talks on leadership, and outside the schools, where
he meets regularly with various community groups to discuss district directions and to
gather public input. His style is to develop and sustain strong relationships, build
capacity, and maintain organizational transparency. Toward these ends, the district holds
meetings with ―Key Communicators‖ every two months. These meetings are attended by
an range of participants including business leaders, retired district employees, other
retired citizens, past superintendents, and a small group of parents. During the meetings,
district leaders bring up current issues and gather input and advice. In addition,
superintendent meets regularly with a community clergy group and with different ethnic
groups of parents every month.
Along with other district leaders, Superintendent Cameron also holds ―listening
sessions‖ in the community once every month. The meetings are held in different parts of
the district and are open to anyone who wishes to attend. The superintendent has stated
that listening sessions are not a venue for formal presentations by the district to the
public; instead, the sessions provide an opportunity for district representatives to hear
about issues and concerns from the community. In addition, during the summer, the
superintendent and some of his staff visit local businesses during the lunch hour to have
―listening sessions‖ with business people and workers. According to the superintendent,
these communication efforts have been essential in building relationships and trust within
the district. Superintendent Cameron receives several e-mails from parents and other
community members every day and commits himself to a 24-hour turn-around policy. He
states that this turn-around time has been essential to keeping up the flow of
communication.
The Glenhurst district has three mandated, formal governance structures designed
to include outside stakeholders in decision making. These are the elected Local School
Committees (LSCs), elected Site Councils, and Parent Teacher Organizations (PTOs.
Superintendent Cameron meets with the LSCs approximately every two months to talk
about their work and to listen to their concerns. The Site Councils are made up of
teachers and other community members, 50% each. The superintendent meets with all
members of the Site Councils quarterly to listen to their ideas and concerns, and they
update him on their school-improvement plans. Every school in the district is mandated
to have a PTO) designed to include parents in school operations. Actual influence of the
PTOs varies tremendously by school, depending on the leadership styles of the respective
principals.
According to the Assistant Superintendent, the district has goals that are
communicated to the public, but it has no formal policies to ensure involvement of
outside stakeholders in decision making at the district level, beyond formal governance
120
structures. However, the district has several informal means of involving the community
in school-improvement efforts. For example, community members and parents were
invited to weigh in on curricular-adoption processes at the district level. In addition, the
district website often features postings seeking parental and community input on district
programs, planning, goals, and visions.
Although the district actively seeks input, district officials do not always know
what to do when community members come forward with input. One sort of example
arises when like-minded parents band together if they do not like something, bombarding
district offices with phone calls and e-mails and testifying at board meetings. This kind of
community engagement can be intense and narrowly focused, the Assistant
Superintendent has stated, and it sometimes slows processes down, but she believes that
the voices of parents, happy and unhappy, need to be heard and taken into account. The
school board vice chair, similarly, has stated that allowing all voices to be heard is valued
by the district. ―You have to maintain a democratic public education system,‖ he said;
―you have to have the public involved.‖ In these various consultations, there is a group of
parents and community members—white and relatively affluent—deemed very
influential by district staff members. District officials struggle with the task of attracting a
representative group of community members to help with school improvement efforts.
Atlas School District: A Focus on Communication, Transparency, and Partnering. The
Atlas school district, located in a Midwestern university town, has 52 schools that serve
approximately 34,000 students—22% minority and 38% of receiving free or reducedprice lunches. The district states that it has four primary goals: (1) to increase student
achievement and graduation rates, (2) to provide enough classrooms and other learning
environments to support achievement, (3) to increase stakeholder involvement for
increasing achievement, and (4) to increase communication with outside stakeholders,
while emphasizing student achievement. Prior to the tenure of the current superintendent,
Michelle Sorenson, who came into office in 2005, the previous superintendent held the
job for more than 10 years. That superintendent was not skilled in engaging with the
community. Because there were complaints from community groups about the old
superintendent, the school board engaged the community in helping to pick the new
superintendent. Board members said that they looked for and hired an ―avid
communicator.‖ When Superintendent Sorenson came on board, she made it a priority to
get out into the community, repair relationships with stakeholders, build trust, and restore
the reputation of the district.
An executive vice president of a local children‘s foundation stated that the district
has improved since Superintendent Sorenson came on board—in openness and in
soliciting community input for discussions of how the district operates. For example, the
superintendent focused on being visible by giving approximately 80 presentations to
community organizations in the first year she took office. She spoke to civic and business
groups, attending Rotary lunches and meeting with other community agencies. Increased
visibility has led to increased trust between the district and various community groups
and parents, according to district representatives and community stakeholders. In order to
build relationships, gain trust, and communicate the needs of the district, the
121
Superintendent engaged as many stakeholders as possible. For example, the district
recruited approximately 60 people from various community groups and parents to lobby
for a bond measure. The bond measure passed because of the district‘s renewed
commitment to the community.
Superintendent Sorenson says it is important for her leadership to maintain
transparency in proceedings at the district level, and to communicate continually with the
public. The district also brings people in on important district-level initiatives so that
stakeholders feel part of the process. For example, the district established a Community
Curriculum Council that meets monthly; its membership includes up to two parent
representatives per school. Approximately 30 parents attend these meetings. As one
parent explained, the Curriculum Council provides an opportunity for parents to meet
with other parents, to discuss district issues related to curriculum and other important
topics. According to another parent, the official role of the council is ―to advise the
curriculum department on parents‘ views on different curriculum issues as well as to be
educated by the curriculum department on what is going on with the curriculum.‖ The
district‘s mission and goals are well known inside the organization and within the
community. Annually, the district prepares and distributes a report to all Atlas residents
that includes information such as test scores, results of follow-up studies from graduates,
assessment results about the learning climate, financial information, and school
demographic characteristics.
In Atlas (as was also the case in Glenhurst), principals determine in large measure
whether or not PTOs will operate as effective entities. Although PTOs are not mandated,
there is a district policy encouraging each school to have a PTO. The school board
encourages schools with PTOs to focus on developing and maintaining volunteer
programs. Also, the district also does not mandate that each school must have a site
council. Against this background, the district struggles, as Glenhurst does, to engage
parents from diverse backgrounds. Atlas parents who serve on the Community
Curriculum Council, join PTOs, or serve on site councils tend to be relatively affluent
and white.
Atlas district officials emphasize partnering with community organizations. For
example, parents and other stakeholders report that the superintendent has focusing
increasingly on connecting with the business community. The district created a
partnership program with businesses called the ―Ventures in Partnership‖ program. It is
designed to get students involved in businesses, and to get businesses involved in the
schools in a more formal way. Activities include tours of businesses, business
representatives speaking in the classroom, and businesses giving gifts to students who do
well academically. The district also partners with the local university—e.g., through joint
projects such as an entrepreneur-focus program and math and science grants. The
Superintendent meets on a regular basis with the Dean of the College of Education and
with key staff members to talk about possibilities for collaboration. For example, the
district‘s Director of Evaluation helped a team of university people put together an
assessment training program for experienced teachers. He also helps design teacher
education curriculum and teaches certain college courses. And the district partners with a
122
local children‘s foundation that works with homeless students. Foundation staffer
members work actively with Atlas school counselors and social workers; they also serve
on Atlas truancy committees.
The Atlas district also partners with community organizations to operate
independent community learning centers that are housed in Atlas schools. The learning
centers offer two kinds of service. They provide tutoring and other forms of academic
assistance, and they provide affordable before- and after-school care facilities. The
district has approximately 19 community learning centers; each one is tailored to the
needs of the community it serves. For example, parents from a neighborhood advisory
group for one Atlas school volunteer in a learning center to tutor or oversee activities.
Two community liaison staffers work with the Atlas district office to engage businesses
and other community partners (such as Family Services, Parks and Recreation, and the
YMCA) to sponsor or act as a lead agency in community learning centers throughout the
city.
North White Pine County School System: An Emphasis on Creating Community BuyIn and Partnering. North White Pine County School System, located in a Southern state,
has 35 schools with approximately 25,000 students—39% minority and about 42%
students on free and reduced-price lunches. Because the district is located near a military
base, it continually faces high student- and teacher-turnover. A large factory in the
community employs many of the parents whose children attend schools in the district.
Because of parent work schedules, the district partnered with community 4H and
extension services to provide affordable before- and after-school care programs. The
district‘s primary goal is to ensure that every student is successful in school and goes on
to become a productive member of the community. In general, the district accommodates
the demands and challenges of being in a community with a high mobility rate and
difficult work schedules for parents. Also, because the district has been labeled as ―low
wealth,‖ the superintendents and other district level leaders often turn to the community
to find ways to meet state mandates.
Leadership in the North White Pine County district has been unusually stable
compared to other districts in the state, and around the country. Superintendent
Samuelson, who retired after the 2006-2007 school year, served the district for 16 years,
and the superintendent before him served for 19 years. Because district leadership has
remained stable for so long, the staff has been able to work through issues and challenges
in a very systematic way, especially with the community. When Superintendent
Samuelson retired, along with three other district-level leaders, a new superintendent,
Sheila Wauters, took over the district. Superintendent Wauters was brought up through
the North White Pine County ranks; she was already a part of the district when she took
office.
In the North White Pine County district, parents and community members can get
involved with the schools, formally, in three ways (apart from getting elected to the
school board). First, they may participate in school-level advisory councils or schoolimprovement teams. Every school-improvement team must have 50% parent
123
representation. Second, they may serve as representatives on the district-wide advisory
council. Third, they may serve as members of PTOs (the district encourages schools but
does not require them to have PTOs).
Although the district encourages community members to get involved,
participation and influence by community members varies from school to school. Each
principal is allowed to run his or her school, and the district only gets involved in school
operations only when there is a problem. For example, the district intervened when
parents at one school complained the school‘s culture and claimed that a new
administrative team was less responsive to them than previous administrators had been.
The district worked with the new administration and parents to make sure that a strong
relationship was built.
School board policy at North White Pine County states that the board has
established its commitment to families and the community by creating and maintaining
policies to provide for the transparency of public records, for having open board
meetings, for allowing community groups to use school facilities, and for allowing
visitors to have access to the schools. The district emphasizes the importance of
partnering with community groups and agencies. District officials believe that their
message about being child-centered and open to community input has helped with such
things as the passing of bonds, including one that passed recently by a positive vote of
more than 70%. The district has a Director of Community Affairs (DCA) whose job it is
to foster civic participation and promote good citizenship among staff members and
students, encouraging them to sit on community and business boards, to reach out to the
public, and to attend board meetings.
The district conducts an annual climate survey—reaching parents, students,
business people, faculty and staff members from local colleges, and other community
partners including members of faith-based organizations—to learn what community
people think about school and district programs and practices. In North White Pine
County, the district coordinator of testing and evaluation said that reaching out to the
community was ―second nature‖ and ―just the culture that we have.‖
The district has a history of gaining buy-in prior to launching new programs, thus
mitigating pressure of the sort that often arises in other districts. For example, prior to
making decisions on redistricting, the superintendent, the DCA, and the person in charge
of public relations took their ideas ―on the road‖ to every neighborhood in the district that
would be affected, asking the public for input. Going out to talk about a controversial
topic is, in the words of the DCA, ―not always fun,‖ but he adds that people in the
community appreciate the chance to give input; they feel that they are valued by the
district leaders.
Partnering with local community groups and with other county personnel has
been a necessity for district leaders in North White Pine County because of its low-wealth
status. The district networks and partners often with local universities and community
college faculty and staff members to provide teacher training and certification. For
124
example, the district partnered with mathematics and science professors to create a
program to improve teachers‘ knowledge and skills in mathematics and science. The
district also works with community agencies. The Rotary Club sponsors leadership
activities for North White Pines students; a local power company sponsors leadership
training for principals and has given awards for academic achievement to teachers and
students; the Chamber of Commerce provides leadership training for district leaders.
Superintendent Wauters is also involved with the regional Association of Colleges and
Schools and serves as the state specialist in the area of district accreditation.
The DCA manages and monitors most of the community partnerships for the
district. The district has a 17-year-old business relationship program called BASES
(Businesses Assisting Schools in Educating Students). BASES works to foster business
involvement in the schools. Activities include participation in adopt-a-school programs,
financing mini-grants, sponsoring scholarships, providing training for employees to help
them help their children learn, donating equipment or materials, serving on school
committees, sponsoring field trips, providing tutoring and mentoring, and participating in
a joint Chamber of Commerce and schools initiative. Through programs of this sort, the
district has been able to make valuable connections with local businesses; when issues
such as levies and bonds arise, district staff members feel that they have allies in the
business community. While BASES programs emphasize business donations of time and
money to the schools, the district also stresses its contributions to the community. In
2005, for example, the school system was the largest contributor to the local chapter of
the United Way, and all schools participate annually in the community fund-raiser for
free cancer screenings.
Looking Across the Cases
The school districts described in the above three case vignettes have much in
common: a district-wide commitment to listening to public concerns; serious effort given
to communicating district policies and practices to the public; and a focus on
collaborating and partnering with individuals and groups from the community, including
business people. While the districts carry out these efforts in different ways, and to
varying degrees of success, district leaders from all three clearly understand the relevance
of engaging with the community and are open to input from the public. In addition, the
governance structures outlined in the cases mirror certain findings from our quantitative
studies. For example, all three districts encourage or mandate governance structures (site
councils, building leadership teams, PTOs) aimed at ensuring community members‘
participation in district and school-level decision making. Our case analysis is consistent,
therefore, with our prior finding that districts set the policies and expectations for who
should serve on these entities. The cases also shed light on a problem: although these
districts provide a range of formal structures for distributed leadership, all three struggle
with the task of obtaining diverse representation from parents and other community
members.
Our case analysis is also consistent with our quantitative finding that district
culture has only a limited influence on community involvement at the school level. All
three districts modeled community engagement, partnering, and a willingness to listen to
125
public concerns, and all made efforts to include families and communities in district-level
committees. In all three cases, however, the district stopped short of making sure that
principals modeled these same behaviors. One reason may be that the districts are
committed to local control and a hands-off approach to day-to-day operations within
schools. In each case, district leaders acknowledged that engagement with communities
varies from school to school, depending upon the leadership styles of the principals.
communicated at the school level in the same way, even though district leaders espoused
Leaders in all three districts were aware of research linking family involvement with
increased student learning, but they did not believe it was their role to mandate
engagement between schools, parents, and other community members. Reflecting on
these cases, we note that district-level policies and structures are necessary to maintain
communication and provide opportunities for engagement with parents and other
community members. At the same time, we observe that establishing policies and
providing structures will not ensure widespread, genuine participation. To gain the
benefits of widespread participation, district leaders will need to do more. They will need
to focus more sharply and energetically on collective leadership by engaging teachers,
administrators, parents, and community members in ongoing, reflective discussions of
what each party can and should contribute to students‘ learning.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Three implications for policy and practice emerged from this component of our
study.
1. District leaders need to engage in dialogues with principals about what openness
to community and parental involvement means in practice, beyond merely
establishing policies and structures. Pertinent topics for such discussions would
include the value of partnering with parents and community members in schoolimprovement efforts, parents as vital partners in the learning process, the
importance of shared leadership, and the critical role that the community plays in
every child‘s life.
2. Principals need to engage teachers and other staff members in similar discussions,
focused especially on ways to involve parents in roles beyond the superficial tasks
often allocated to them (e.g., coordinating social events, fundraising through bake
sales). Many parents feel marginalized because they are given tasks that do not
reflect the crucial role they could otherwise play in support of their children‘s
education. Parent participation as tutors, mentors, or in other forms of classroom
support are as vital as the roles they take on in site-council activities.
3.
Districts should take an active role in teaching parents and other community
members how to be involved in education. This effort should include providing
informational and instructional sessions about shared governance. These
discussions could help to create a sense of ownership among all staff parents,
parents, and other community members, helping to increase student learning.
126
2.2
Principals’ Efficacy: A Key to District Effects on Schools and Students
Key Findings

Districts that help their principals feel more efficacious about their school
improvement work have positive effects on school conditions and student
learning.

Principals who believe they are working collaboratively toward clear and
common goals—with district personnel, other principals, and teachers in their
schools—are more confident in their leadership.

District size is a significant moderator of district effects on school-leader efficacy;
the larger districts, the less the influence.

School level also is a significant moderator of district effects on school-leader
efficacy, with districts having larger effects on elementary than secondary school
leaders.
Introduction
One of the most powerful ways in which districts influence teaching and learning
is through the contribution they make to feelings of professional efficacy on the part of
school principals. Evidence justifying this claim is provided by quantitative and
qualitative studies. Principal efficacy provides a crucial link between district initiatives,
school conditions, and student learning.
Our quantitative evidence was useful in addressing three issues:

the extent to which district leadership and district conditions influenced principals‘
sense of efficacy for school improvement

the influence of principal efficacy on: (a) principals‘ leadership practices, (b) learning
conditions in their schools, and (c) student learning

the extent to which personal and organizational characteristics moderate the influence
of principals‘ efficacy on student learning.
Given the significant contribution that principal efficacy makes to school
effectiveness, it is important to know what districts can do to build such efficacy. While
our quantitative evidence provides a general response to this question, our qualitative
evidence offers much more detailed answers.
127
Prior Evidence
Relevant theory. Efficacy is a belief about one‘s own ability (self-efficacy), or the
ability of one‘s colleagues collectively (collective efficacy), to perform a task or achieve
a goal. It is a belief about ability, not actual ability. Bandura, self-efficacy‘s most
prominent theorist, claims that:
People make causal contributions to their own functioning through
mechanisms of personal agency. Among the mechanisms of agency, none
is more central or pervasive than peoples‘ beliefs about their capabilities
to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that
affect their lives (1997a, p. 118).
Most leader-efficacy studies have been influenced by Bandura‘s sociopsychological theory of self-efficacy (e.g., 1982, 1986, 1993, 1997a, 1997b). In addition
to defining the meaning of self-efficacy and its several dimensions, this body of work
identifies the effects of self-efficacy feelings on a leader‘s behavior, and the
consequences of that behavior for others. This line of theory also specifies the direct
antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs and the mechanisms through which such beliefs
develop.
Efficacy beliefs, according to this theory, have directive effects on one‘s choice of
activities and settings, and they can affect coping efforts once those activities are begun.
Such beliefs determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will
persist in the face of failure or difficulty. The stronger the feelings of efficacy, the longer
the persistence. People who persist at subjectively threatening activities that are not
actually threatening gain corrective experiences that further enhance their sense of
efficacy. In sum, ―Given appropriate skills and adequate incentives…efficacy
expectations are a major determinant of peoples‘ choice of activities, how much effort
they will expend and how long they will sustain effort in dealing with stressful situations
(Bandura, 1997a, p.77).
Efficacy beliefs, according to Bandura (1993), develop in response to cognitive
and affective processes. Among the cognitive mechanisms, and potentially relevant to our
research, are perceptions about how controllable or alterable one‘s working environment
is. These are perceptions about one‘s ability to influence, through effort and persistence,
what goes on in the environment, as well as the malleability of the environment itself.
Bandura (1993) reports evidence suggesting that those with low levels of belief in how
controllable their environment is produce little change, even in highly malleable
environments. Those with firm beliefs of this sort, through persistence and ingenuity,
figure out ways of exercising some control, even in environments that pose challenges to
change. This set of efficacy-influencing mechanisms may help to explain some results of
our research on district conditions and initiatives that foster principal efficacy.
Self-efficacy beliefs also evolve in response to motivational and affective
processes. These beliefs influence motivation in several ways: by determining (a) the
128
goals that people set for themselves,170 (b) how much effort they expend how long they
persevere in the face of obstacles, and (c) their resilience in the face of failure. Also,
motivation relies on discrepancy reduction as well as discrepancy production. That is,
people are motivated both reduce the gap between perceived and desired performance
and to set themselves challenging goals which they then work hard to accomplish. They
mobilize their skills and effort to accomplish what they seek.171 Such beliefs, we surmise,
also are likely to be influenced by some of the conditions that principals experience in
their districts.
Previous research. Pointing to the similarity of efficacy and self-confidence,
McCormick claims that leadership self-efficacy or confidence is likely the key cognitive
variable regulating leader functioning in a dynamic environment. ―Every major review of
the leadership literature lists self-confidence as an essential characteristic for effective
leadership‖ (2001, p. 23). That said, we know very little about the efficacy beliefs of
leaders in particular,172 and even less about the antecedents of those beliefs. According to
Chen & Bliese (2002), most organizational research has focused on the outcomes of
efficacy beliefs, with much less attention to their antecedents. Pescosolido (2003) has
argued, in addition, that the antecedents of leaders' self efficacy (LSE) and leaders'
collective efficacy (LCE) may well differ. For example, district leadership practices and
organizational conditions may predict collective efficacy more immediately than they
predict self efficacy because leadership practices relate only indirectly to the more
proximal antecedents of individual efficacy, such as role clarity and psychological
states.173
Prior evidence about the antecedents of both self- and collective-leader efficacy
warrants several conclusions. First, no single antecedent has attracted much attention
from researchers. Second, the most frequently studied antecedents—leader gender,
leaders‘ years of experience, level of schooling, and compliance with policy or
procedures—have not found much evidentiary support, by any conventional social
science standard. Third, what evidence there is about the impact of various antecedents
on leader efficacy suggests that results are either mixed or not significant. Finally, as far
as we could determine, there has been very little effort to understand district influences
on school-level leader efficacy.
New Evidence
Method174
Instruments. The overall sampling strategy for our first round of surveys is
described in the methodological appendix. Evidence for this sub-study was provided by
responses to 58 items on the first round of teacher surveys and 58 items from the first
170
E.g., Locke & Latham (1984).
Bandura (1993).
172
Chemers, Watson & May (2000); Gareis & Tschannen-Moran (2005).
173
Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis (1995).
174
This sub-study is reported in more detail in Leithwood & Jantzi (2008).
171
129
round of principal surveys. Principal survey items measured LCE (4 items), LSE (6
items), district conditions (30 items), and district leadership (18 items). We measured
three additional variables with the teacher survey: school leadership (20 items), class
conditions (15 items), and school conditions (21 items). The distribution of variables to
be measured across the two surveys is based on judgments about which respondents
(teachers or administrators) were most likely to have the authentic information about each
variable. This procedure also reduced the threat of same-source bias in our results.
Previous efforts to develop adequate measures of leader-efficacy beliefs have
failed to produce instruments completely suitable for our purposes. Gareis and
Tschannen-Moran (2004), for example, describe many of these previous efforts and
report results of their research on the validity and reliability of:

a promising, vignette-based measure of individual leader efficacy developed by
Dimmock and Hattie (1996);

a 22-item adaptation of a measure of collective teacher efficacy originally developed
by Goddard et al. (2000b); and

a 50-item adaptation of a measure of individual teacher efficacy (eventually reduced
to 18 items) initially developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000).
These authors reported disappointing results of their tests of the factor structures
of the first two instruments, but the third measure proved to be more satisfactory in terms
of its factor structure and its construct validity. Three factors emerged: self-efficacy for
handling managerial aspects of the job, instructional leadership tasks, and moral
leadership tasks.
Because we focused in our larger study on leaders‘ influence on student learning,
we incorporated into our principal survey the six-item scale measuring feelings of selfefficacy about instructional leadership tasks. We interpreted these items to be measuring
efficacy for school improvement. Beginning with the stem To what extent do you feel able
to, the six items included the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Motivate teachers?
Generate enthusiasm for a shared vision of the school?
Manage change in your school?
Create a positive learning environment in your school?
Facilitate student learning in your school?
Raise achievement on standardized tests?
We developed a new four-item scale for the principal survey to measure leaders‘
collective efficacy beliefs about school improvement. Beginning with the stem To what
extent do you agree that, these items included the following:
130
1. School staffs in our district have the knowledge and skill they need to improve
student learning?
2. In our district, continuous improvement is viewed by most staff as a necessary part of
every job?
3. In our district, problems are viewed as issues to be solved, not as barriers to action?
4. District staff members communicate a belief in the capacity of teachers to teach even
the most difficult students.
Previous studies of school-leader efficacy have measured the effects of various
demographic variables, but without much effort to explain why such variables might
influence sense of efficacy. Few demographic variables have been shown to have a
significant influence on leader efficacy. Personal characteristics measured in our study
include leader race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience as a school administrator, and
years of experience in one‘s current school. We also measured a handful of
organizational characteristics plausibly related to leader efficacy including school and
district size, school level, and number of different principals in the school over the past
10 years.
We collected data on student achievement from school websites. These websites
provided school-wide results from state-mandated tests of language and mathematics at
several grade levels from 2003 to 2005. We averaged results across grades and subjects
in order to increase the stability of the scores. We then estimated a change score, the
average change in each school from 2003 to 2005, and recorded the annual achievement
score for each of the three years. This score was the proportion of students in each school
achieving at or beyond the proficient level on the states‘ tests.
Analysis. We aggregated individual teachers‘ responses to the teacher survey to
the school level and then merged them with principals‘ responses to the school
administrator survey. We used SPSS to calculate means, standard deviations, and
reliabilities (Cronbach‘s alpha) for scales measuring variables of interest to this study.
We conducted five types of analysis: (1) we calculated Pearson product correlations to
estimate the strength of relationships between variables in the model; (2) we used
standard multiple regression to determine the effects of a specific variable that differs
from the effects of other independent variables (e.g., the differing effects of LSE and
LCE on school conditions); (3) we used hierarchical multiple regression was to examine
the effects of particular variables or sets of variables on the dependent variable, after
controlling for the effects of other variables (e.g., how the effects of district conditions on
principal efficacy are moderated by district size); (4) we computed a t-test to determine
the significance of leader gender; and (5) we used analyses of variance (one way
ANOVA) to determine the significance of school level and leaders‘ race/ethnicity.
We used LISREL to test a model of the causes and consequences of school-leader
efficacy. This path analytic technique allows for testing the validity of causal inferences
for pairs of variables while controlling for the effects of other variables. We analyzed
131
data using the LISREL 8 analysis of covariance structure approach to path analysis and
maximum likelihood estimates.175
Nature of the Evidence
Here we were motivated by questions about (1) district antecedents of school
leaders‘ efficacy, and possible differences in the antecedents of individual as compared
with collective leader efficacy, (2) consequences of school-leader efficacy for leader
behavior, as well as school and classroom conditions, and (c) effects of leader efficacy on
student learning. We also examined the moderating effect of a handful of demographic
variables.
Table 2.2.1 reports the means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities for
responses to the teacher and principal surveys. These data are based on responses from 96
schools and administrators (an 83% response rate) and 2,764 teachers (a 66% response
rate).
Table 2.2.1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Scale Reliabilities for Variables Measured
(N = 96)
Mean
SD
Reliability
Number Items
Leader Collective Efficacy-LCE
4.801
.82
.85
4
Leader Self-efficacy-LSE
4.032
.60
.92
6
176
4.78
.72
.92
30
177
4.80
.85
.89
18
School Leadership
4.55
.52
.95
20
School Conditions
4.10
.46
.83
21
Classroom Conditions
4.69
.25
.60
15
District Conditions
District Leadership
178
Rating scales: 11=Strongly Disagree to 6= Strongly Agree for all but the following variable.
2Leader Self-Efficacy 1=Very Little to 5=Very Great.
Analyses reported below include a series of correlations and regressions followed
by a path model. Our data do not permit us to make strong claims about cause and effect
relationships. Nonetheless, we use the language of ―effects‖ throughout as an indication
of the nature of the relationships in which we were interested.
175
Joreskog & Sorbom (1993).
These conditions are described in more detail in Section 2.3.
177
For a full definition of how this variable was conceptualized, please see previous Section 1.4.
178
See previous Section 1.4 to view measures which were included from the teacher survey.
176
132
District Antecedents of School-Leader Efficacy
District leadership. As Table 2.2.2 indicates, our aggregate district leadership
variable is strongly related to LCE (.61) and significantly but moderately related to LSE
(.32). Among the four dimensions included in our conception of district leadership, the
strongest relationship with LCE is Redesigning the organization (.61) followed by
Developing people (.55), Managing the instructional program (.53) and Setting
directions (.42). With LSE, the strongest relationship is with Managing the instructional
program (.33) followed by Redesigning the organization (.28), Developing people (.26)
and Setting directions (.22).
Table 2.2.2
District Antecedents of School-Leader Efficacy: Correlation Coefficients
(N = 96 schools)
LCE
LSE
.61**
.32**
.56**
Setting Directions
.42**
.22*
.39**
Developing People
.55**
.26**
.49**
Redesigning the Organization
.61**
.28**
.54**
Managing Instruct. Program
.53**
.33**
.52**
.68**
.44**
.67**
Focus on Quality
.66**
.39**
.63**
Use of Data
.52**
.35**
.52**
Targeted Improvement
.61**
.33**
.56**
Investment in Instruct. L.
.51**
.25*
.46**
Job-embedded Pro D
.40**
.35**
.45**
Emphasis on Teamwork
.57**
.45**
.60**
New School Relations
.58**
.35**
.56**
District Culture
.61**
.38**
.59**
District Leadership
District Conditions
Combined
** p < .01
*p< .05
Results of a standard regression analysis show that our aggregate measure of
district leadership (using the adjusted R) explains 8% of the variation in LSE, half of
which is accounted for by Managing the instructional program; it also explains 40% of
the variation in LCE, of which significant contributions are made by Redesigning the
organization (9%) and Managing the instructional program (4%).
District conditions. All eight sets of district conditions are significantly related to
leader efficacy, strongly so with LCE. The strongest relationship with LCE is the
133
district‘s expressed Focus on quality (.66), followed, in order, by District culture (.61),
Targeted improvement (.61), Relations with schools and stakeholders (.58), Emphasis on
teamwork (.57), Use of data (.52), Job-embedded professional development for teachers
(.40), and Investment in instructional leadership at the district and school levels (.51).
We consider the nature and significance of this last district condition in greater detail
later in this section, since it is a center-piece in the improvement efforts of many districts.
Relationships between district conditions and LSE are generally weaker, although
still statistically significant. The strongest relationship here is with Emphasis on
teamwork (.45), Focus on quality (.39), District culture (.38), Use of data (.35), Jobembedded professional development for teachers (.35), Relations with schools and
stakeholders (.35), Targeted improvement (.31), and Investment in instructional
leadership (.23).
Standard regression analyses indicate that the aggregate measure of district
conditions explains 19% of the variation in LSE and 56% of the variation in LCE.
Among the eight sets of conditions included in our district variable, significant
contributions to explained variation in LSE were made by Emphasis on teamwork (18%
of variation), District culture (13%), Focus on quality (12%), Relations with schools and
stakeholders (11%), Data use (11%), Job-embedded professional development for
teachers (10%), Targeted improvement (9%), and Investment in instructional leadership
(5%). For LCE, the contributions to overall explained variation were: Focus on quality
(42%), Targeted improvement (36%), District culture (36%), Relations with schools and
stakeholders (33%), Emphasis on teamwork (31%), Use of data (26%), Investment in
instructional leadership (25%), and Job-embedded professional development for teachers
(15%).
Effects of Leader Efficacy on Leader Behavior, School and Classroom Conditions
Table 2.2.3 reports correlations between LSE, LCE, an aggregated measure of
efficacy and leader behavior (in the Combined column), school conditions, and classroom
conditions. The strongest relationships are between School conditions and Aggregated
efficacy (.46) followed closely by the relationship between Classroom conditions and
Aggregated efficacy (.40). Correlations between School leadership and both Aggregated
efficacy and LSE are comparable (.30 and .32). LSE has substantially higher correlations
with School leadership than does LCE. Correlations between LSE and the four separate
dimensions of leadership are roughly similar, ranging from a low of .25 (Developing
people) to a high of .39 (Setting directions); for LCE, the range is between .14 (Managing
the instructional program) and .23 (Redesigning the organization).
134
Table 2.2.3
Leader Efficacy Relationships with School Leader Practices
and School and Classroom Conditions
(N = 96 schools)
LCE
LSE
.20
.32**
.30**
Setting Directions
.20*
.39**
.35**
Developing People
.18
.25*
.25*
Redesigning the Organization
.23*
.30**
.31**
Managing Instruct. Program
.14
.30**
.26*
School Conditions
.42**
.37**
.46**
Classroom Conditions
.36**
.30**
.40**
School Leadership
Combined
** p < .01
*p< .05
Standard regression equations were used to estimate the ―effects‖ of LSE, LCE,
and an aggregate measure of efficacy on leader behavior as well as school and classroom
conditions. The aggregate efficacy measure explained 9% of the variation in leader
behavior; LSE explained 7%; and LCE had no unique effect. Both forms of efficacy
combined explained more variation in School (19%) and Classroom (14%) conditions
than either did separately; when examined separately, LSE and LCE explained roughly
the same amount of variation in School conditions (4 and 8%), but only LCE explained
any significant amount variation in Classroom conditions (7%).
Effects of Leader Efficacy on Student Achievement
Table 2.2.4 reports correlations between alternative estimates of student
achievement and our three leader-efficacy measures. LSE is not significantly related to
any of the estimates of student achievement. However, there are consistent and
significant relationships with each year‘s annual achievement scores (% of students
achieving at or above the proficient level) for our other two efficacy measures. Two of
the three annual achievement scores are significantly related to LCE (.33, .29). All three
annual achievement scores are significantly related to our aggregate efficacy measure
(.28, .24 and .25).
135
Table 2.2.4
Leader Efficacy Relationships with Mean Achievement Gain and
Percentage of Students at State Proficiency Level
Mean Achievement Gain
(N = 77)
Proficiency 2003
(N = 78)
Proficiency 2004
(N = 79)
Proficiency 2005
(N = 67)
LCE
LSE
Combined
-.03
.13
.05
.33**
.16
.28*
.29**
.12
.24*
.23
.21
.25*
** p < .01
*p< .05
Results of a regression analysis indicate that neither LCE alone, LSE alone, or an
aggregate efficacy measure account for significant variation in the three-year mean
student achievement change score. Leader efficacy, however, does explain significant
variation in annual achievement scores. The aggregate efficacy measure and LCE explain
comparable amounts of variation in achievement scores for 2003 (7 and 8%), and 2004 (5
and 7%). In 2005 only the aggregate efficacy measure explains significant variation in
student annual achievement scores (5%). LSE alone had no significant explanatory
power.
Moderating Variables
The variables we designated as moderators have potential effects on the
relationship between district leadership, district conditions, and leader efficacy.
Potentially, they may also moderate the relationship between leader efficacy and
conditions in the school and classroom, as well as student achievement.
Our results indicate that some potential moderators had no influence on either set
of relationships. This was the case for Leader gender, Experience, and Race/ethnicity, so
we do not consider them further. On the other hand, District size, School size, School
level, and Number of principals in the school over the last 10 years were significant
moderators of the relationship between efficacy and conditions in the class and school,
along with student achievement. District-leader efficacy relationships were unaffected by
any of our potential moderators.
To estimate the effects of the four remaining variables on efficacy, we entered
both types of leader efficacy, as well as the combined efficacy measure, into a series of
regression equations, adding District size, School size, School level, and Number of
principals in the school over the last 10 years. As a group, these moderators:
136

increased the variation in leader behavior explained by both sources of efficacy
combined from 9% to 19%, by LSE alone from 9% to 19%, and by LCE alone from
3% to 16%

increased the variation in school conditions explained by both sources of efficacy
combined from 20% to 34%, by LSE alone from 11% to 25%, and by LCE alone
from 18% to 34%

increased the variation in class conditions explained by both sources of efficacy
combined from 15% to 30%, from LSE alone from 8% to 22%, and from LCE alone
from 14% to 30%

increased the variation in student annual achievement scores explained by both
sources of efficacy from 8% to 14%
The moderators did not add to the variation in student achievement explained by
LSE. School level and District Size contributed unique variation to many of these
relationships and should be considered the most powerful of the moderators included in
this study. Both of these moderators depressed the strength of the relationships in which
they were significant. In other words, the contributions of both LSE and LCE to most of
the relationships with which they were associated were muted by increased district size
and in secondary as compared with elementary schools.
The Causes and Consequences of School Leaders’ Efficacy Beliefs: Testing a Model
Figure 5 summarizes the results of testing a model of the causes and
consequences of leader efficacy beliefs using path modeling techniques (LISREL). The
model is an acceptable fit with the data (RMSEA = .00, RMR = .03, AGFI = .93 and NFI
= .97). It indicates that the most direct ―effects‖ (standardized regression coefficients) of
district leadership are on the creation of those district conditions believed to be effective
in producing student learning (.77); these district leadership effects account for 60% of
the variation in district conditions. District conditions, in turn, influence aggregate school
leader efficacy (.68); 46% of the variation in leader efficacy is explained by the effects of
district conditions.
School leader efficacy is moderately associated with school conditions (.22).
Aggregate leader efficacy explains 14% of the variation in leader behavior and 57% of
the variation in school conditions in combination with leader behavior, with most of this
variation attributable to LCE. The model suggests both direct effects of school conditions
on student learning (.44) and indirect effects through classroom conditions (.88); school
conditions explain 58% of the variation in class conditions. The model as a whole
explains 17% of the variation in student achievement.
Most of these results seem reasonable, the exception having to do with classroom
conditions. Our analysis produced a non-significant and negative direct relationship
between class conditions and student learning. We have no firm explanation for this
137
surprising result, but the marginal reliability of the scale used to measure classroom
conditions (alpha = .60) may provide part of the answer.
(.54)
(.43)
(.42)
(.83)
LCE & LSE
.68*
District
Leadership
.77*
District
Conditions
.22*
School
Conditions
.46*
.88*
Class
Conditions
Achievement
.65*
SLEADER
.44*
(.40)
(.86)
Figure 5: Modeling the Relationship among Variables Related to Leader Efficacy
Fit Indices
RMSEA
RMR
AGFI
NFI
.00
.03
.93
.97
Standardized Total Effects on Student Achievement
District Leadership
.08*
District Conditions
.10*
Combined Leader Efficacy
.21*
School Leader Behavior
.27*
School Conditions
.40*
Class Conditions
-.04
Analyses of our quantitative data can be summed up as follows:

The effects of district leadership on principals, schools, and students are largely
indirect, operating through district conditions.

District leaders help to create conditions that are viewed by school leaders as
enhancing and supporting their work.

All four dimensions of district leadership were moderately to strongly related to
principal efficacy (arguing for district leaders‘ adoption of a holistic approach to their
own practice).

The greatest effect of district leaders will be the outcome of engaging in all four sets
of practices in a skillful manner.
District conditions had larger effects on principals‘ collective efficacy than on
their individual efficacy—providing some confirmation for Chen and Bliese's (2002)
138
expectation that such differences would likely exist. This expectation is based on the
relatively direct influence of organizational conditions on collective efficacy, with less
direct influence on individual efficacy. Common to both types of efficacy, however, is
the strong influence of the district‘s focus on student learning and the quality of
instruction, as well as district culture. These mutually reinforcing district conditions seem
likely to attract the collective attention of school leaders to the district‘s central mission.
Also common to both types of efficacy is our discovery that the relationships
between district investments in developing instructional leadership and both types of
leader efficacy were the weakest of the relationships tested. Furthermore, district
investments in instructional leadership had a substantially greater influence on leaders‘
collective efficacy than on their individual efficacy. Perhaps such an investment by
districts has greater symbolic than instrumental value; it signifies the district‘s
commitment to improving learning more than it actually develops greater capacity for the
task. This conjecture on our part certainly warrants more direct study.
We found a modest effect of a combined or aggregate measure of individual and
collective principal efficacy on the leadership practices of principals, mostly accounted
for by individual efficacy. There was a stronger though still moderate effect of aggregate
leader efficacy on both classroom and (especially) school conditions. Collective efficacy
explained most of this variation.
The relationship between principals‘ efficacy and their leadership practices or
behaviors were weaker than we expected. One plausible explanation is that our measure
of leadership practices did not adequately capture the consequences of different levels of
efficacy (or confidence) for what leaders do and how they are perceived. These
consequences may have less to do with the practices themselves and more to do with the
―style‖ of their enactment (e.g., acting with assurance, displaying a confident attitude,
remaining calm in the face of crises).
We found relatively small but significant effects of leader efficacy on student
learning. The size of these effects is comparable to what others have reported about
school-leader effects on learning and other student outcomes.179
The extent of principal-efficacy effects on schools and students is significantly
moderated by a handful of organizational characteristics (school size, district size, school
level, frequency of principal succession), but by none of the personal variables included
in our study (i.e., leaders‘ gender, experience, race, or ethnicity). The moderating effects
of organizational characteristics are to be expected, since district size and school size
almost always ―make a difference,‖ no matter what the focus of the research is.180
Elementary schools are typically more sensitive than secondary schools to leadership
influence, although previous leader-efficacy research has reported mostly non-significant
effects.181 And the rapid turnover of principals has been widely decried as anathema to
179
Hallinger & Heck (1996b); Leithwood & Jantzi (2005).
e.g., Lucas, 2003; Smith, Guarino, Strom & Reed (2003); and Walberg & Fowler (1987).
181
DeMoulin (1992); Dimmock & Hattie (1996).
180
139
school improvement efforts.182 Now we have some evidence that the positive effects of
leader efficacy are also moderated by school and district size (the larger the organization,
the less sense of efficacy among principals).
Investments in Instructional Leadership Development: A Deeper Look
Many districts consider development of their principals‘ capacity for instructional
leadership—one of the district conditions included in our measures—to be a cornerstone
of their improvement efforts. In light of this, we used quantitative evidence from our
second survey to understand in greater depth how districts‘ efforts to bolster principals‘
capacity for instructional leadership influence schools and students. More specifically, we
asked:
1. How do principals assess the professional development and support their districts
provide?
2. How does professional development, as principals experience it, affect principals‘
collective sense of efficacy?
3. How is development, as principals experience it, associated with student learning?
How Do Principals Assess the Professional Development and Support Their
Districts Provide?
The second survey includes a number of items reflecting principals‘ belief that
district staff members were making efforts to develop their skills. We framed these items
generically, in an effort to tap the respondents‘ belief that professional development and
support were being provided by the district. Sample items are shown below. While in
may cases we have chosen to look only at principals, rather than including assistant or
associate principals, in this case we chose to include all respondents (211), since there is
no reason to assume that assistant or associate principals can or do receive fewer
professional development resources, and our preliminary analysis suggested that there are
no significant differences between the two groups.
What becomes immediately apparent is that principals have a generally positive
view of the districts‘ professional development efforts. The mean responses are, in all
cases, above the midpoint, meaning that most principals agree, either slightly, moderately
or strongly, that their district provides the type of professional development indicated. In
addition, in no case do we find principals strongly disagreeing that their district provides
them with a particular type of support.
Principals do, however, differentiate among the different categories of support
and professional development expressed in the questions. The most positive view of
district support occurs on three items: Most principals agree, either moderately or
strongly, that district leaders:
182
Hargreaves & Fink (2006); Macmillan (1996).
140

encourage administrators and teachers to act on what they have learned in their
professional development;

encourage school administrators to work together to improve their instructional
leadership; and

work with school administrators who are struggling to improve their instructional
leadership.
Principals appear to be somewhat less positive about three other indicators. Many
indicate that they strongly disagree, disagree, or are uncertain that district leaders Take a
personal interest in my professional development. Many also indicate that district leaders
Provide quality staff development focused on priority areas only occasionally, rarely, or
very rarely. They also give weak ratings to the frequency with which the district Provides
opportunities to work productively with colleagues from other schools.
M = 3.57
SD = 1.08
N = 210
D2. District leaders take a personal
interest in my professional development.
M = 3.49
SD = .90
N = 208
D15. How frequently do your district leaders
provide quality staff development focused
on high priority areas of instruction?
141
M = 3.23
SD = 1.06
N = 208
D16. How frequently do your district leaders
provide opportunities for you to work
productively with your administrative
colleagues from other schools?
M = 4.42
SD = 1.45
N = 210
D.32.Ddistrict leaders encourage school
administrators to work together to improve
instructional leadership?
M = 4.48
SD = 1.20
N = 210
D27. District leaders deepen my
understanding of instructional leadership.
M = 4.19
SD = 1.44
N = 207
D.35. District leaders work directly with
school administrators who are struggling to
improve their instructional leadership?
Figure 6: Principals’ Views of District Actions to Support Professional Growth
142
An additional question concerns the distribution of professional development
among different kinds of schools. Using analysis of variance, we examined differences in
professional development experiences among elementary, middle, and high schools,
among larger and smaller schools, and among schools with more or fewer students in
poverty. None of these variables appear to be significantly associated with principals‘
reports of their professional development experiences.
How Does Professional Development, as Principals Experience It, Affect Principals’
Collective Sense of Efficacy?
To explore this question, we examined professional development in the context of
several other factors that might affect principals‘ sense of collective efficacy. In
particular, we wished to explore the general issue of whether professional development,
which we view as targeted support for leadership, is more or less important than pressure
to increase achievement, which is a major component of state policy. We assumed that
effective leadership may require a combination of external support and pressure. In order
to address this question we developed several new scales, using the second principal
survey:

Professional development scale. The six example items above (see Figure 6), and two
additional items: How frequently do your district leaders provide feedback to school
administrators about the nature and quality of their leadership? and, How frequently
do district leaders encourage administrators and teachers to act on what they have
learned in their professional development? were highly correlated, and we computed
a composite scale using the eight standardized items (α = .88).
We conducted factor analyses for a number of additional items related to district
initiatives for improvement. Of these, we selected one that seems particularly pertinent to
elaborating on the findings presented earlier in this section, since it emphasizes the
district‘s accountability and pressure focus. In order to examine
the relative importance of targets and accountability, we computed a new scale:

District data use and targets scale. This factor loaded highly on items such as Our
district has explicit targets beyond NCLB targets, Our district incorporates student
and school performance data in district-level decisions, Our district assists schools
with the use of student/school performance data, and The district uses student
achievement data to determine PD needs and resources. We used an additive score of
five standardized variables in this analysis, with α = .87.

Collective sense of efficacy (LCE). Our measure of collective sense of efficacy varied
from the first survey, but it still emphasized the ability of leaders in the district to
solve problems and improve student learning. Three items composed the scale for
collective sense of efficacy: School staffs in our district have the knowledge and skill
they need to improve student learning; In our district, continuous improvement is
viewed by most staff as a necessary part of the job; and In our district, problems are
viewed as issues to be solved, not as barriers to action. The alpha for this scale, using
standardized variables, is .72.
143

Principal sense of efficacy scale (LSE). In addition, we wished to include a measure
of individual sense of efficacy. Our measure here differed somewhat from the
measure used in the first survey. In this case we focused on a longer battery of
leadership competencies on which the principal rated him- or herself on a four point
scale ranging from ―basic‖ to ―highly developed.‖ This scale included 10 items,
including self-rated expertise in instructional strategies, coaching, managing student
behavior, developing unity and teamwork among teachers, and motivating others (α =
.74).
To examine the effects of these variables on collective sense of efficacy, we used
a regression model, entering the key variables identified above in a first step, and then
entering potential mediators: school size, the school level (elementary/secondary),
percentage of non-white students, percentage of students in poverty, and the individual‘s
position (principal or assistant principal). The results are shown below in Table 2.2.5.
This table indicates that district professional development and district targets both
have a strong association with collective sense of efficacy (with pressure through targeted
and data-focused expectations contributing more to collective efficacy). Individual sense
of efficacy also makes a significant contribution to the relatively large percentage of
variance explained. The school characteristics do not achieve a significant regression
coefficient, nor does the Principal/Assistant Principal variable. The regression suggests
that pressure and support are important predictors of collective sense of efficacy, but that
pressure may be more important than support in the form of professional development for
school leaders.
How Is Professional Development, as Principals Experience It, Associated with
Student Achievement?
The bottom line for judging investments by districts working to develop
instructional leadership is whether such investments are linked to student achievement.
We examined this issue using causal modeling. The model assumes that Professional
development of school leaders (Support) and Targets and data (Pressure) are both
associated, directly and indirectly, with student achievement.183
The model, which achieves a reasonable level of fit, explains approximately 7%
of the variance in achievement, largely through the direct relationship assumed between
collective efficacy and students‘ test scores (.23). Professional development of school
leaders has an insignificant direct path coefficient with student achievement, while
Targets and Data has a significant negative relationship. This unexpected finding
suggests that pressure, arising from targets and an emphasis on data use, may backfire in
the classroom unless it is balanced with support (in this case, through professional
development), so that it works by building a strong collective leadership base in the
district.
183
Based on analyses not shown here, we chose not to include Individual Principal Efficacy as a mediating
variable. Individual Efficacy has no significant relationship with achievement, and the more complex
model explains no additional variance.
144
In sum, the analysis suggests that investment in the professional development of
school leaders will have limited effects on efficacy and student achievement unless
districts also develop clear goals for improvement. On the other hand, setting targets and
emphasizing responsibility for achieving them is not likely to produce a payoff for
students unless those initiatives are accompanied by leadership development practices
that principals perceive as helping them to improve their personal competencies.
145
Table 2.2.5
Regression of Collective Sense of Efficacy on District, Individual and School Characteristics
(N=191)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Model
(Constant)
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
-.045
.103
District PD for Principals
.191
.061
District Use of Targets and Data
.611
Principal Sense of Efficacy
Percent of Nonwhite Students
Beta
t
Sig.
-.433
.665
.184
3.125
.002
.058
.628
10.588
.000
.212
.067
.149
3.188
.002
.156
.199
.060
.787
.433
Percent of Free or Reducedlunch Students
-.271
.244
-.086
-1.113
.267
Total Number of Students
2.781E-5
.000
.023
.421
.674
.002
.006
.123
.902
Your title (Prin/AP)
.000
R2 = . .626
F = 44.079, sig. .000
The Effects of District Pressure and Support on Collective Efficacy and Achievement
e
District PD
f or Principals
f
.18
.03
.07
.63
.16
.66
Principal Efficacy
.63
.10
Collective
Efficacy
.07
.23
Ahievement
2005-6
-.11
-.19
.00
District Use of Targets
and Data
%FRP
g
Figure 7: The Effects of District Pressure and Support on Collective Efficacy and Achievement
R2 for Collective Efficacy = .63
R2 for Achievement = .07
RMSEA = .268
CMin = 3.98, p = .55
NFI = .98
146
The findings about the importance of targets and data use, in combination with
district professional development, are quite strong when moderated by principal efficacy.
However, an analysis of data-use effects reported in Section 2.5, which did not use
principal efficacy as a moderating variable, also reported significant data use effects on
students, but only in elementary schools. Together, these analyses suggest that district
data use matters, but further research will be needed before we fully understand the
nature of that influence.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Four implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. District leaders should consider school leaders‘ collective sense of efficacy for
school improvement to be among the most important resources available to them
for increasing student achievement.
2. District improvement efforts should include, as foci for immediate attention, those
eight sets of conditions which the best available evidence now suggests have a
significant influence on principals‘ sense of efficacy for school improvement.
3. Principals who believe themselves to be working collaboratively toward clear,
common goals with district personnel, other principals, and teachers in their
schools are more confident in their leadership.
4. It is not enough to merely launch initiatives aimed at improving the sense school
leaders have of their efficacy for school improvement. Such initiatives and the
conditions on which they depend can be well or poorly implemented. It will take
high-quality implementation at the district level to produce higher levels of
principal efficacy.
147
2.3
How Districts Build Principals’ Sense of Efficacy
for School Improvement
Key Findings

Districts contribute most to school leaders‘ sense of efficacy by the following
means:
1. Ensuring that teachers and administrators have access worthwhile
programs of professional development, aimed at strengthening their
capacities to achieve shared purposes
2. Assigning priority, unambiguously, to the improvement of student
achievement and instruction
3. Making significant investments in the development of instructional
leadership
4. Ensuring that personnel policies support the selection and maintenance of
the best people for each school
5. Emphasizing teamwork and professional community

The efforts districts make to build principals‘ sense of efficacy can have positive
or negative consequences, depending on the manner in which the initiatives are
implemented. Much depends upon the frequency, nature, and quality of
experiences provided in the course of implementation.
Introduction
The concluding portion of Section 2.2 describes results from a quantitative
examination of three district conditions (investments in the development of instructional
leadership, setting targets for improvement, engaging in data-informed decision-making)
as they may affect the sense leaders have of their efficacy for fostering school
improvement and student achievement. This section extends that line of inquiry to all
eight of these district conditions identified earlier, plus additional district factors that
emerged from our qualitative inquiries.184
184
Readers wishing to know more about our conception of efficacy, background research relevant to our
study of efficacy, and how we identified its importance in district efforts to improve student achievement
are referred back to Section 2.2.
148
New Evidence
Method
Sampling. We conducted site visits for the qualitative component of our larger
study in 18 districts (two per state) and 36 schools. We obtained evidence for this substudy from the 31 principals for whom complete data were available at the time of
analysis. We visited two schools (one elementary, one middle school or high school) in
each district to interview teachers and administrators and to observe classroom practice.
In addition, we conducted district-level interviews focused on the study of leadership and
learning.
The 31 principals we interviewed for this sub-study included 19 females and 12
males from 13 elementary, seven secondary, nine intermediate, one combined
elementary/middle school, and one junior/senior high school. Principals in this sample
had been leading their schools for an average of 4.67 years (ranging from 1 to 22 years),
and had been working in their present districts for an average of 7.83 years (ranging from
1 to 27 years). While prior evidence paints a mixed picture of the influence of
demographic variables on leader efficacy, the overall effect of such variables seems to be
weak or non-existent.185 For example, virtually no evidence suggests that school level or
size,186 teachers‘ age or total years of experience in education, student SES or student
ethnicity, influence leader efficacy.187
Gender appears to be the most influential demographic variable. Although most
studies report no influence of gender,188 a few report women‘s professional efficacy
levels to be higher than men‘s.189 Here, we report interviewee demographic information
for descriptive purposes only.
Instrument. In interviewing principals we were guided by a 21-question, semistructured protocol focused on principals‘ views of state and district initiatives,
principals‘ leadership practices, the distribution of leadership in the principals‘ schools,
the professional development needs of teachers and principals, and relationships between
the principals‘ schools and their communities.
We recorded the interview sessions, which lasted an average of 60 minutes, and
transcribed them. Because the importance of school-leader efficacy became apparent to
us only after we analyzed our survey data, the interview protocol did not include
questions designed to elicit leader-efficacy information. As a result, the distinction
between personal and collective efficacy is less clear from these results than we would
wish in an ideal world.
185
Gareis & Tschannen-Moran ( 2005).
But see DeMoulin (1992).
187
E.g., Gareis & Tschannen-Moran (2005); Lucas (2003); and Roberts (1997).
188
E.g., Dimmock & Hattie (1996); Roberts (1997).
189
Imants & DeBrabander (1996); Waskiewicz (2002).
186
149
Analysis. We examined interview transcripts for evidence of district conditions
that would influence principals‘ efficacy. Data analysis proceeded in two phases. In phase
one, we coded relevant sections of the transcripts for each principal and culled excerpts
under three headings linked to our conceptual framework:
1. Indicators/feelings identified by principals of their ability to get the job done. These
are statements providing evidence of the interviewees‘ sense of efficacy to perform their
jobs effectively. The statements were often embedded in other statements about
influential district or school-level conditions, as illustrated in the sample quote below.
2. Factors in the district that influence principals’ ability to get the job done. These are
factors giving rise to Indicators/feelings. We separated factors according to their reported
positive or negative influence on the principal‘s ability to get the job done.
3. District conditions. We coded each district factor according to nine district conditions
(see Table 2.2.2). Some factors were related to more than one condition. For example,
―the district holds regular meetings for administration groups to keep everyone up to date
so people can act as supports and resources for one another‖ would be coded under Use
of data as well as Emphasis on teamwork.
Seven of the district conditions listed in Table 2.2.2 were based on Anderson‘s review
of the literature on the school district role in educational change (Anderson, 2006). Two
(District personnel policies; District policy governing school choice) were added as they
emerged inductively from our analysis of the interview data. We recorded them and
subsequently treated them like the original seven conditions. Initially, one analyst did all
the coding. Then, to check on reliability, we asked two other researchers working on the
larger project to code a sample of transcription data. For background, we provided them
with an introduction to this study, information about the district conditions, a numbered
list of the conditions with a brief explanation of each, and a chart of 25 uncoded
quotations from the principal transcripts. Their task was to match each quotation to an
appropriate district condition. Decisions by the two coders were the same as decisions by
the original coder 88% (22 out of 25 quotations) and 84% (21 out of 25 quotations) of the
time.
In the second phase of this analysis we used a process of analytic induction190 to
generate propositions that reflected our interpretation of findings grounded in the
interview excerpts and related to the appropriate conceptual framework codes. For
example, when a principal said:
I am like a cheerleader for them [teachers] and they have to be there for the kids.
But I recognize that they were not trained. They haven‘t had the training. Their
curriculum was not there. They didn‘t have the materials to do what they wanted
to do,
190
Glaser & Strauss (1967).
150
we coded the statement under Indicators/Feelings, and we interpreted and summarized it
in propositional form as, ―A new principal feels enthusiastic about the work in the school,
but recognizes the teachers have been lacking training, curriculum, and materials for
teaching.‖
This statement was also coded as a district factor, which we interpreted as, ―The
district is not providing adequate financial support for professional development or for
instructional materials.‖ While the interpretive process in the conversion of qualitative
data to statements of findings is always subject to concerns about validity, we believe that
clear descriptions of the analytical procedures employed provide the reader with a
legitimate basis for assessing the trustworthiness of the findings.
District Conditions Associated with Principals’ Efficacy for School Improvement
Questions motivating this sub-study focus on the extent to which conditions
associated in previous research with school district effectiveness were reported as
influences on principals‘ sense of efficacy, and whether additional district conditions also
had such influence.
Table 2.3.1 summarizes evidence about the number of respondents who identified
each of the original district conditions, along with two more suggested by our data
(number 4 and number 9) as having a bearing on their own sense of professional
efficacy. The first column of Table 2.3.1 shows the relative rankings of the nine
conditions and the efficacy-influencing enactments related to each condition (also
ranked). The second and third columns show positive and negative effects on efficacy,
and the fourth column shows the total number of respondents who made positive or
negative comments. (Several respondents identified both positive and negative features of
some conditions.)
Table 2.3.1
District Conditions Associated with Principal Efficacy
District Conditions 191
1. District-wide focus on student achievement and
instruction
Provides clear sense of direction through establishment
of achievement standards and provision of district-wide
curriculum and/or programs192
Provides human and financial resources to assist
schools in achieving district-established directions
Communicates high expectations for the work of
teachers and principals in accomplishing district
directions and implementing effective instruction
191
192
Respondents
N=31 (Rank)
Positive
28 (3)
Respondents
N=31 (Rank)
Negative
16 (1)
23
8
15
11
14
2
Totals
44
Two conditions added to the original eight are identified by *.
All statements related to conditions are stated in the positive.
151
District Conditions 191
Allows schools sufficient flexibility in pursuing district
directions
Engages in ongoing or periodic review of directions
and plans
2. Job-embedded professional development (PD) for
teachers
Provides evidence to assist in the planning of teacher
PD
Holds principals accountable for implementing and
following up on what is learned during district –
sponsored PD
Encourages the use of school staff meetings for
purposes of PD
Approves of a wide-variety of types of PD but insists
they be meaningful for teachers and aligned with
district goals and priorities
Provides adequate funds to support significant PD
May mandate participation in PD considered critical to
the achievement of district priorities.
3. Investment in both school- and district-level
instructional leadership
Establishes teachers‘ work as the main focus of
attention for school leaders
Provides a wide range of professional development
opportunities to help build the instructional leadership
capacities of principals
Holds principals directly responsible for student
achievement in their schools
4. District personnel policies
Stability in district leader roles
District hiring policies ensure principals can select
outstanding teachers
District leaders assume school leadership roles when
needed
Competent principals are hired from within the district
and their capabilities matched with school needs
Principal succession is planned and minimized
5. Emphasis on team work and professional
community
Support and encouragement are provided for teacher
and principal collaboration
Principals and teachers participate in district-wide
decisions that directly impact on their work
Structures are established which allow for sharing of
information and collaborative problem solving within
and across schools
District ensures that schools are kept informed about
Respondents
N=31 (Rank)
Positive
11
Respondents
N=31 (Rank)
Negative
Totals
10 (2)
39
5
29 (2)
4
19
2
11
1
17
13
17
6
5
30 (1)
3 (7)
33
28
20
3
23
22 (5)
10
9
10 (3)
3
4
32
4
9
4
26 (4)
2
2 (8)
28
6
12
1
10
13
152
District Conditions 191
both state and district initiatives.
6. District-wide use of data
Insists on data-based decision making in schools
Provides schools with much of the data they need to
exercise data-based decision making
Assists schools in the interpretation and use of data for
decision making
Creates structures which foster the sharing of
information across schools and between schools and the
district
Uses data to determine the goals for principal and
teacher professional development
7. Targeted and phased focuses for improvement
Requires the development of improvement plans in all
schools (either district- or school-developed)
School improvement goals are clear and aligned with
state and district standards
School improvement plans are aligned with district
improvement plans
In cases of school-developed improvement plans,
district provides a procedure for the development of the
plan.
8. Relations with schools and stakeholders (district,
board, union, school)
Provides significant opportunities for principals and
teachers to be involved in decisions at the district level
District staff keep well informed about school
programs, priorities, initiatives, and programs
Encourages communication across schools by
principals and provides opportunities for this to occur
Permits flexibility for schools in the enactment of
district initiatives
9. District policy governing school choice
District protects schools from rapid and dramatic
changes in curriculum and student population
Respondents
N=31 (Rank)
Positive
Respondents
N=31 (Rank)
Negative
18 (7)
12
4
5 (5)
5
23
1 (9)
21
4 (6)
20
Totals
4
3
6
20 (6)
9
7
7
6
16 (8)
4
6
1
10
1
9
4
0
8 (4)
8
8
Our analysis prompted us to relocate one of the district sub-conditions and to add
two new conditions. The sub-condition we have relocated is union-school relationships.
Our previous review of evidence included this as part of Emphasis on teamwork and
professional community; we now think it should be part of Relations with schools and
stakeholders (condition #8, in Table 2.3.1). Principals in our sample spoke about the
effects of strong unions, focused primarily on teachers‘ working conditions, as obstacles
to creating collaborative cultures and engaging teachers in school- and district-wide
decision making. Our evidence shows this relationship with unions to be largely
negative—a drain on principals‘ sense of efficacy. Unlike the evidence from some studies
153
reviewed by Anderson, none of the evidence we obtained from principals alluded to the
positive contributions teacher unions can make to school improvement efforts, which
could enhance the principal‘s sense of personal and collective efficacy.
Our evidence also suggested the need to add two district conditions not included
in our original list of conditions associated with district effectiveness: District personnel
policies and District policies governing school choice. These added conditions are
discussed in more detail below.
Evidence summarized in Table 2.3.1 indicates that principals viewed the
enactments of the respective conditions in their own districts with a largely positive bias.
The conditions making the greatest positive contribution to the principals‘ sense of
efficacy were, in order, a District-wide focus on student achievement and instruction,
Job-embedded professional development for teachers, Investment in both school- and
district-level instructional leadership, and District personnel policies. Principals
mentioned District policies governing school choice only as negative influences on their
sense of efficacy.
The conditions cited most frequently (by a third or more of the sample) as
negative influences on efficacy were District-wide focus on student achievement and
instruction, Job-embedded professional development, and District personnel policies.
These three conditions account for a disproportionate number of both positive and
negative influences on efficacy—very sharp, double-edged swords.
Our findings regarding the nine district conditions and the related efficacyproducing enactments are described in the following section. The numbers in parentheses
following efficacy-producing enactments indicate how many principals made comments
that reflected a positive influence on their efficacy (e.g., 9+), or a negative influence on
their efficacy (e.g., 3-). Excerpts from principals‘ transcripts illustrate positive influences.
1. District-wide focus on student achievement and the quality of instruction. This
condition elicited positive responses from 28 principals and negative responses from 16.
Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include districtprovided curriculum and performance standards, with flexibility for implementation;
clear policies, with a procedure for ongoing review and revisions; assignment of subjectarea facilitators to schools; and support for differentiated instruction.
Enactments negatively associated with principal efficacy include district
enforcement of common standards, with no credit given for large gains schools have
made in cases in which standards have not yet been reached; adoption of initiatives based
on conflicting assumptions or ideologies; adoption of a focus for student learning that
narrows the curriculum and minimizes the value of important fields of study; and
excessive prescriptions about how principals and teachers must pursue the district‘s
curriculum standards and achievement goals.
154
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when
enactments of this condition include the following:

Districts provide a clear sense of direction through the establishment of achievement
standards and district-wide curriculum and/or programs. (23+, 8-)
Excerpt: The fact that we have a more central focus and central direction, I
think, has improved student instruction and improved student learning, and
forced us to take a hard look at what we’re doing with students.

Districts provide human and financial resources to assist schools in achieving
district-established directions. (15+, 11-)
Excerpt: I think in general it’s really a privilege to work in a district like this.
There’s a great deal of support, you know, budgetarily, which helps us to
move things in a direction that we feel is positive, that’s gonna help the
students, so, we have a lot advantages.

Districts communicate high expectations for the work teachers and principals do
accomplish district directions and implement effective instruction. (14+, 2-)
Excerpt: I would say the accountability at all campuses. The superintendents
that we’ve had have put a lot of pressure on the principals, to make sure that
the teachers feel more accountable for the students that they have.

Districts allow schools sufficient flexibility in pursuing district directions.
(11+, 1-)
Excerpt: The impetus to tailor it to the school site has been very clearly
indicated. But the initiatives have come out of the district office.

Districts engage in ongoing or periodic review of directions and plans, and make
revisions as appropriate. (5+)
Excerpt: Our district curriculum now has been rewritten to mirror the state
curriculum but also all of that ties into our state testing. So the state testing
now is more in alignment with what is actually being taught.
2. Job-embedded teacher professional development. Professional development is
an important element in the enactment of most of the conditions we are investigating. It
elicited positive responses from 29 of the 31 principals in our sample. Ten principals,
however, identified some aspect of district-sponsored professional development as having
a negative influence on their efficacy.
Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include
districts providing data and guidelines to help principals and teachers to deliver better
155
instructional programs; district support for attendance at professional development
conferences; encouragement to use school staff meetings for professional development
purposes; alignment of professional development programs with the district‘s curriculum;
district provision for flexibility such that schools may design their own professional
development programs; and provision of adequate funding for various approaches to
professional development.
Enactments of this condition viewed less favorably by principals include
requiring excessive professional development for teachers and principals; allowing inschool professional development to crowd out time for teacher collaboration; setting
limits on the use of substitute teachers; setting restrictive limits on authorized absences
from the school building for professional development; providing inadequate funding for
professional development; and focusing on professional development for one initiative in
such a way that other important initiatives are left unsupported.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when
enactments of this condition include the following:

Districts hold principals accountable for implementing and following up on what is
learned during district-sponsored professional development. (19+, 2-)
Excerpt: I think fundamentally my role is to help hold people accountable that
the professional development initiatives and activities … are then reflected in
practice so that it’s not just simply, “Here’s a good idea somebody thinks we
should be talking about.”

Districts approve many types of professional development but insist they be
meaningful for teachers and aligned with district goals and priorities. (17+)
Excerpt: I think we do have some direction from our central office and from
our curriculum director about where we should go, but we also have
flexibility about how we are going to do that.

Districts mandate participation in professional development considered critical to the
achievement of district priorities. (17+, 5-)
Excerpt: With that the district said how we were to do it. It provided
professional development for the teachers, for myself, so that we could go and
be trained in it. And then as a result we are expected to follow that
curriculum.

Districts provide adequate funds to support significant professional development.
(13+, 6-)
156
Excerpt: [Districts] encourage [teachers] to attend professional development
that’s offered by the district. Encourage and/or financially support them to
attend outside professional development

Districts encourage the use of school staff meetings for professional development.
(11+, 1-)
Excerpt: Because part of what we do is if the district office offers in-service
kinds of things or professional development, either the department chairs go,
or they send stronger teachers to go and bring it back to the department.

Districts provide evidence to assist in the planning of professional development for
teachers. (4+)
Excerpt: Definitely a push towards using data . . . to create teacher leaders,
recognizing that that’s where the staff development needs to happen.
3. Investment in both school- and district-level instructional leadership. This
condition elicited positive responses from all but one of the 31 principals; it elicited
negative responses from three. Enactments of this condition positively associated with
principal efficacy include districts providing support for principals‘ professional
development; districts providing individualized support for principals, depending upon
the challenges they face in their schools; districts holding principals accountable for
student achievement and teacher contributions to student achievement; districts giving
principals responsibility for responding to student data; districts providing district staff to
oversee subject-matter teaching in all elementary schools; districts providing a
curriculum with supporting professional development for principals and teachers.
Enactments of this condition associated with negative consequences for principal
efficacy include districts not supporting principals‘ professional development; districts
not providing enough professional development; and districts requiring teachers and
principals to participate in excessive amounts of professional development. As these
examples illustrate, enhancing efficacy through professional development requires
something of a balancing act. Principal efficacy is fostered in a positive way by the right
amount of professional development and in a negative way by either too much or too
little.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when
enactments of this condition include the following:

Districts make teachers‘ work the main focus of attention for school leaders. (28+)
Excerpt: We have to participate, we have to help rather than manage.
Although a lot of the job is still managing because there is still the paperwork.
… We also have to relate more to the teachers and the students. To actually
know what they are doing in the classrooms.
157

Districts hold principals responsible for student achievement. (23+)
Excerpt: Frankly my communication is very simplistic. I tell people, I tell our
staff constantly that my goal and I expect it to be theirs is that we help
improve the student achievement and that we do so in a caring and nurturing
environment.

Districts provide a wide range of professional development opportunities to help
build principals‘ capacity for instructional leadership. (20+, 3-)
Excerpt: We have principal meetings two times a month and then … because I
am a new principal this year, I get a third one. … About every year I go to
either a state or national conference and attend courses there …and
occasional workshops.
4. District personnel policies. This is one of the two conditions we added to the
original list of seven. It elicited positive responses from 22 principals and negative
responses from 10. Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal
efficacy include encouraging promotion of principals from within the district and giving
principals a significant role in selecting teachers.
Respondents mentioned the importance of ―matching‖ teachers and principals to
the mission or culture of the school, or allocating especially effective principals to
especially challenging schools. Hiring district office staff into school leadership roles was
typically viewed as adding strength to the collective capacity of schools in the district.
Stable and consistent district leadership, which we included as a feature of district
personnel policies, also contributed to principals‘ sense of efficacy. Principals‘
commitment to directions established by the district, and confidence in being able to
pursue them successfully, were significantly eroded by frequent superintendent turnover.
Principals‘ efficacy was especially challenged when principals were appointed to schools
that had been experiencing frequent turnover of leaders in recent years. We are not
suggesting that district personnel policies, or policies governing school choice, should be
regarded as additional dimensions of district effectiveness, as per the district conditions
identified in Anderson‘s review (Anderson, 2006); it is simply the case that that they
emerged in our analysis of principal interview data as additional sources of district
influence on principal efficacy.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when
enactments of this condition include the following:

Districts provide stability in district leader roles. (10+, 3-)
Excerpt: There have been a lot of changes in the district in the last couple of
years. Some probably stem from the fact that there was a large turnover in
leadership in the last couple of years. But education is constantly evolving.
It’s not a static thing
158

Districts hire competent principals from within, and principals‘ capabilities are
matched with school needs. (9+)
Excerpt: When I first took this building in 1989, I didn’t want to come back
because the morale was terrible here. But I took the challenge, I had been
asked to come back and so I did. I have not been sorry. It has turned out to be
everything I wanted it to be. Now I can kind of sit back and enjoy it.

District hiring policies ensure that principals can select and retain outstanding
teachers.(9+, 4)
Excerpt: Well, the principals do almost all the hiring in the district. As a
matter of fact, I will be hiring a new teacher. … So we control over what our
staff looks like. … It is about hiring good people but it is not always a
guarantee. It is about keeping good people.

District leaders assume school leadership roles when needed. (4+)
Excerpt: When I was weighing whether to leave Central Office or stay or
leave to go to the building level, it was … [this school]. I was interviewing
prospective candidates for the principal here. No one knew anything about
small schools. What they were going to do with this building was distressing
me, you know?

Principal succession is planned and minimized. (4+, 2-)
Excerpt: Cultivating our own leaders is very important … which I really
appreciate and admire about the school district. So that when you step into
that position [of principal] you kind of know the district’s way of doing things
and you are able to just pick up and go.
5. Emphasis on teamwork and professional community. This condition elicited
positive responses from 26 principals and negative responses from two. Enactments of
this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include keeping schools
informed about state and district initiatives; providing support and encouragement for
principal and teacher collaborative relationships; following through on state requirements
in ways that led to greater collaboration within schools; and ensuring that district leaders
meet with principals frequently to work through decisions together. Efficacy was
influenced in a negatively at one small school where involvement in the district meant the
principal had to allocate 15 curricular liaison positions among 11 staff members without
overwhelming anyone.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when
enactments of this condition include the following:
159

Principals and teachers participate in district-wide decisions that have a direct impact
on their work. (14+, 1-)
Excerpt: The superintendent’s office, the curriculum department really was
working with a group of teachers and supervisors, administrators to come up
with a new form that would make it easier for you to observe forty teachers
but really pinpoint some areas that we wanted to work on.

Schools are kept informed about state and district initiatives. (13+)
Excerpt: That is my work. … The district translates what the state expects
from us. …We need to translate for our students, teachers, support staff,
parents, what that means.

Districts provide structures that allow for sharing of information and collaborative
problem solving within and across schools. (13+)
Excerpt: During the summer, the superintendent housed all the top
administrators, the principals and assistant principals for a whole week, and
they had to learn to work together, not just within their campus, but within the
district.

Districts support and encourage teacher and principal collaboration. (8+, 1-)
Excerpt: One thing that our superintendent has presented us with is he wants
us [principals and teachers] to be more collaborative.
6. District-wide use of data. This condition elicited positive responses from 18
principals and negative responses from five. Enactments of this condition positively
associated with principal efficacy include district provision of data useful to schools in
planning for professional development; involvement of schools in decision making
related to the data; engagement of an external person to conduct a curriculum audit, thus
encouraging improved alignment within the district; and detailed guidance and support
by the district for schools trying to interpret and use their data.
Of the five respondents who claimed negative effects on efficacy for this
condition, one said that his or her district required more information about student
achievement than he or she could collect. Another was unnerved by having sole
responsibility for explaining state requirements to students, parents and teachers. In these
and other cases, resistance and negative feelings focused largely on state requirements
over which the principals had no control.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when
enactments of this condition include the following:

Districts insist on data-based decision making in schools. (12+, 5-)
160
Excerpt: But the good news about all of that [district direction] is that we
make very data-driven decisions now. We do a lot of assessments. Those are
both local assessments and state assessments. We use that information
obviously to plan for our children.

Districts use data to set goals for principal and teacher professional development. (6+)
Excerpt: One of them is the data part and the district calls it data sources.
Everybody has a data source. Then with the data source … each teacher
created a goal for him or herself in professional development.

Districts provide schools with much of the data they need to practice data-based
decision making. (4+)
Excerpt: [The district provides] an amazing amount of data. And the people to
help us interpret that data.

Districts assist schools in the interpretation and use of data for decision making. (4+)
Excerpt: We have had . . . extensive training from our central office on
understanding and utilizing test data.

Districts create structures that foster the sharing of information across schools and
between schools and the district. (3+)
Excerpt: As an entire district we have our hand on every kid’s test data. I
don’t care if it’s elementary or high school. We have weekly administrative
meetings and you know those issues will come up and communication is really
strong.
7. Targeted and phased focus for improvement. Enactments of this condition
elicited positive responses from 20 school leaders and a negative response from one.
Enactments positively associated with principal efficacy include district requirements for
improved goal setting; the establishment of detailed school-improvement plans;
requirements that community people participate in formulating school-improvement
plans; clear articulation of expectations for student outcomes, derived from state policy;
support for collaboration between high schools and middle schools; support for teachers
engaged in using new instructional programs. Overall, principals associate positive
feelings of efficacy with a significant level of prescription by the district about the nature
of school improvement plans and the process for creating those plans.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactment
of this condition includes the following:

Requiring the development of improvement plans in all schools (either district- or
school-developed). (9+)
161
Excerpt: The school improvement plan is a requirement that we all have to do
which lays out staff development and the plan for school improvement.

Clear school-improvement goals aligned with state and district standards. (7+)
Excerpt: But …[the school-improvement plan] is campus-based. … We have
to align it with the district’s improvement plan.

School improvement plans aligned with district improvement plans. (7+, 1-)
Excerpt: The district and the school board have sent down a five-year goal for
us. It’s to improve academic achievement for each and every child, especially
in the area of literacy and math.

In cases of school-developed improvement plans, district provision of a procedure for
the development of the plan. (6+)
Excerpt: We’re in a five-year cycle. We involve teachers, administrators,
business people, parents, community people, and we set forth a plan of how
we can improve our schools. The process begins with parent surveys.
8. Relations with schools and stakeholders (district, board, union, school). This
condition elicited positive responses from 16 principals and negative responses from 4.
Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy emphasize
district sharing of key decisions with administrative staff members. In particular
principals emphasized the importance of listening to staff members, staying in touch with
them, involving principals and teachers in the writing of school plans, budgeting for
implementation of those plans, and field-testing new programs. A number of principals
also pointed to the small size of their districts as an important contributor to positive
district-school relations. In smaller districts, they noted, district leaders were more likely
to be in touch with the challenges principals and teachers face.
Principal efficacy is undermined, principals said, when districts neglect to provide
adequate information for schools and parents about expectations from the state level.
Insufficient information leaves them in the difficult of position of having to explain
requirements over which they have no control.
Almost all comments from principals focused on district-school relations. Not
surprisingly, principals had little to say about board-district relations.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when
enactments of this condition include the following:

Encouragement for communication among principals, across schools, and provision
of opportunities for this to occur. (10+, 1-)
162
Excerpt: Monthly meetings really looking at our school-improvement plan and
having the opportunity to visit with other schools and talk with them, to share
ideas and find out what’s worked in one school that we might be able to look
at as a possible intervention.

Flexibility for schools in the implementation of district initiatives. (9+, 4-)
Excerpt: I have a lot of autonomy as far as what kind of staff development I do
for my own teachers on my campus … and I make a lot of decisions with my
team.

District staff keeping themselves well informed about school programs, priorities,
initiatives, and programs. (6+, 1-)
Excerpt: [The district listened] … to the concerns of the teams. … We felt that
there was a need to kind of look at some parts of the instructional parts of
things. … So they came out and helped make that happen.

Significant opportunities for principals and teachers to be involved in decisions at the
district level. (4+)
Excerpt: That is certainly a team that works at the district level and then that
framework of curriculum comes back to our level and then our individual
teams and departments work on it has well.
9. District policy governing school choice. This is the second condition we added
to Anderson‘s original list. It elicited eight responses from principals who identified
instances in which a change in district policies had affected their efficacy negatively.
The evidence shows that school-choice policies can create significant challenges
and have adverse effects on principal efficacy. Creating an open choice policy, one
principal recounted, meant that his school, serving a relatively stable group of local
students quite well by all accounts, suddenly found itself serving students from a radius
of about 14 miles. Another principal described how his school had changed
―overnight‖—also from serving a fairly stable student population to a highly diverse
group of students from the entire district, including members of more than 30 gangs.
In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactment
of this condition includes the following:

The district helps schools respond to rapid and dramatic changes in curriculum and
student population. (8-)
163
Implications for Policy and Practice
Principal efficacy is a key link in the chain joining successful district leadership
with student learning and district conditions have an important influence on such
efficacy. Five implications emerge as a result:
1. District leaders should establish and maintain a district-wide focus on student
achievement and instruction. Efficacy is enhanced when the district provides
human and financial resources to assist schools in achieving those high
expectations.
2.
Districts encourage teamwork and professional community by including both
principals and teachers in district-wide decisions that directly impact their work.
3. Districts should aim to provide stable district leadership as a contribution to
principal efficacy.
4. District hiring policies should allow principals to select teachers they believe to be
outstanding choices for their own school contexts.
5. Because principals have greater efficacy when districts have targeted and phased
focuses for improvement, districts should require the development of
improvement plans in all schools, with improvement goals expected to be clear
and aligned with state and district standards, but with considerable discretion left
to the school to determine the paths to goal achievement.
164
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. achievement;
8.
9.
10.
11.
2.4
Ensuring Productive Leadership Succession
Key Findings

On average, schools experience fairly rapid principal turnover: about one new
principal every three to four years.

Rapid principal turnover has moderately negative effects on school culture.

Rapid principal turnover seems not to have much effect on classroom content or
instruction.

Rapid principal turnover explains a modest but significant amount of variation in
student achievement across schools.

Coordinated forms of leadership distribution have the potential to mitigate at least
some of the negative consequences of rapid principal turnover.

Principals newly assigned to schools who initially work within the existing
culture of their schools, rather than attempting to quickly, substantially change it,
are more likely to avoid negative turnover effects.
Introduction
Our analysis of principal turnover and its effects appears in Part Two of our final
report because principal turnover is fostered in part by district policies. Some districts, for
example, still have policies requiring regular principal rotation.193 Many districts now
have increased accountability requirements for schools and principals to the point where
potential candidates may be deterred from applying for leadership positions.194 Also, it is
typically the district‘s responsibility to find replacements for departing principals,
whatever the reasons for departure. Principal turnover is a problem districts help to
create, and so must help to resolve.
While principal turnover is inevitable in every school, too rapid turnover—or
succession—is widely thought to present significant challenges to districts and schools.
Many districts, for example, struggle to find suitably skilled and experienced principals,
partly because of the above-average replacement rates required by a bulge in the
proportion of incumbents currently becoming eligible for retirement. It is far from a
trivial problem. Schools experiencing exceptionally rapid principal turnover, for example,
193
194
Macmillan (2000).
Blackmore (1996).
165
are often reported to suffer from lack of shared purpose, cynicism among staff about
principal commitment, and an inability to maintain a school-improvement focus long
enough to actually accomplish any meaningful change.195
Our efforts to learn more about the nature and consequences of rapid principal
turnover have been guided by five questions:

How frequently does principal turnover occur in the average school?

Does principal turnover significantly affect conditions across the school and in
classrooms?

Does principal turnover significantly affect student achievement?

Do coordinated forms of distributed leadership, as some evidence suggests, have the
potential to reduce negative influences arising from frequent principal turnover?

What, if anything, can incoming principals do to minimize the negative effects of
rapid principal turnover?
Prior Evidence
School and Classroom Conditions Influenced by Rapid Turnover
For the most part, school leaders influence students indirectly. Efforts to increase
leaders‘ influence on students will therefore depend on identification of factors that
mediate what leaders do. Rowan‘s (1996) framework identifies one promising set of
mediators. This framework suggests that the performance of teachers—clearly the most
powerful mediator of leaders‘ influence on students196--is a function of their abilities,
motivation, and the nature of the settings (or conditions) in which they work. It follows
that leaders‘ influence on students will depend on their success in improving teachers‘
abilities, motivations, and working conditions. In light of this background, we focus here
on teachers‘ school and classroom working conditions, exploring the degree to which
variations in the rapidity of principal turnover may influence school culture, as well as
curriculum and classroom instruction.
We know from prior research that the impact of school leadership on student
achievement is mediated by school culture: shared values, norms, and contexts.197
Healthy school cultures correlate strongly with increased student achievement and
motivation.198 School leaders who build productive ―cultures of change‖199 can enhance
195
Fink & Brayman (2006).
Heck (2007).
197
Deal (1993); Nanavati & McCulloch (2003); Senge (1990); and Stoll (1999).
198
Macneil, Prater & Busch (2007); Stolp (1994).
199
Patterson & Rolheiser (2004).
196
166
teacher motivation, build teacher capacity, promote teacher efficacy,200 and create the
professional unity and cohesion required for effective instruction201 and student
success.202 Principals have a strong effect on school culture and on classroom
conditions—which, in turn, affect student success.203
Principal Turnover Effects
Evidence about principal turnover often associates it with negative consequences.
Grusky (1963) and Bruggink (2001) report that changing principals disrupts staff
members‘ focus on improving student achievement. Others argue that principal turnover
disrupts school change processes when a leader who supports a project leaves and is
replaced by a leader with different priorities;204 when a ―charismatic principal departs
who had 'radically transformed' the school in four or five years‖;205 or
when there is a poor ―fit‖ between the leader and school.206 207
While principal turnover often has negative consequences, the outcome is not
consistently negative. Partlow (2004), for example, argues that student achievement
operates independently of changes in school leadership. Miskel and Owens‘ (1983) study
of 89 schools in the midwest region of the U.S. found that principal succession had no
significant effects on staff members‘ job satisfaction, communication, instruction, school
discipline, or school climate. But there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
Leadership turnover does not have to occur every year or two to be problematic.
Even in cases where a principal‘s tenure extends over a period of several years, teachers
may remain alienated when principal turnover is the result of a district leadership rotation
policy.208 Teachers may become cynical and resistant to change because of the ―revolving
door syndrome‖—the uncertainty and instability turnover causes, and the perception of
the new leader as a ―servant to the system.‖209
Some teachers develop a deep distrust of the new leader‘s loyalty, suspecting that
he or she is more committed to career advancement than the long-term welfare of the
school and community. Under conditions of regular principal turnover, teachers learn to
―wait them out.‖210 That is, teachers maintain barriers between themselves and new
leaders, ensuring that their school‘s culture becomes self-sustaining, ―immunized,‖ and
impervious to change instigated by those in formal leadership positions.211
200
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy (1998).
Stewart (2000).
202
Sarason (1982); Schein (1993).
203
(E.g., Ross & Gray (2006); Waters, Marzano & McNulty (2003).
204
Corbett, Dawson, & Firestone (1984).
205
Fullan (1992).
206
Davidson & Taylor (1998, 1999); Ogawa (1995).
207
The notion of ―fit‖ between leader and school is central to district administrators‘ decision-making
concerning principal placement.
208
Macmillan (2000).
209
Reynolds et al. (2008).
210
Hargreaves et al. (2003).
211
Macmillan (2000); Macmillan, Meyer & Northfield (2005).
201
167
Frequency of Principal Turnover
Nevertheless, principal turnover is nevertheless inevitable in all schools. It is
therefore important to ask about the optimum frequency of turnover: how frequent is too
frequent? How long is too long for a principal to stay in one school? We have been
guided by two theoretical perspectives, stage theory and change theory, in our efforts to
answer these questions.
Stage theory conceptualizes leadership succession as a process with distinct
phases and demands, rather than a singular event.212 Patterns in the process have been
identified, and the ways in which each phase of the succession process shapes and
influences the outcome of subsequent phases have been described.213 Most stage models
predict that it takes at least five to seven years to build relationships of trust that can serve
as a foundation for movement to later stages of the succession process—―consolidation
and refinement,‖ in Gabarro‘s (1987) terms. According to this view, principals need to be
in their schools for about five years in order to have a positive impact. After five years,
the principal‘s work may continue, but continuity from then on does not seem to be
related to continued improvement.
Change theory includes a concept of change as a process of initiation or adoption,
implementation, and institutionalization or continuation.214 According to Fullan (1991),
all successful schools experience an ―implementation dip,‖ a drop in performance and
confidence when people are faced with innovations that demand new knowledge, skills,
strategies, and relationships. People who are experiencing fear and anxiety about their
capacity to manage change require leaders they can trust, as well as leaders who are
empathetic and socially skilled.
Fullan asserts that, while there is no standard formula for changing the culture of
an organization, sustainable improvement requires several years of effort to work through
complex cultural issues such as resistance to change and acculturation of the new
leader.215 Turnover that occurs every two or three years makes it unlikely that a principal
will get beyond the stages of initiation and early implementation. Like stage theory, then,
change theory also argues that leader-tenure much beyond three years is necessary if
significant improvements are to occur in response to a principal‘s initiatives.
This leaves us with questions about the upper limit of a principal‘s tenure in a
school: is there a "best by" date for principals, beyond which they should move on, or be
moved on? Does a principal become stale or stagnant if he or she remains in the position
for too long? We have little hard evidence bearing on this question, but that fact has not
prevented some districts from creating policies reflecting the professional experiences of
their staffs. District superintendents, for example, often justify their principal rotation
policies as a means of reinvigorating school administrators who seem to reach their peak
212
Hargreaves et al. (2003).
Miskel & Cosgrove (1984); Miskel & Owen (1983); and Ogawa (1991).
214
Fullan (1991, 1993).
215
Fullan (1991); Hargreaves & Fink (2006).
213
168
effectiveness after five to seven years.216 Realistically, there is bound to be enormous
variation among individual principals, suggesting that districts should avoid a one size
fits-all approach to principal succession.
Distributed Leadership
Evidence about the effects of principal turnover assumes that a considerable
proportion of the leadership in schools is delivered by the principal. But suppose school
leadership was more dispersed or distributed. Would more leadership distribution within
a school moderate the effects of rapid principal turnover, as some are now suggesting?217
Part One of this report reviewed research and theory about distributed leadership in some
depth, as well as reporting new evidence on the concept. For present purposes, then, we
describe only the conceptual choices we have made for this sub-study of principal
turnover.
Among the many different conceptions of leadership distribution in the
literature,218 we have chosen to view it through a lens developed by Leithwood, Mascall,
and Strauss (2009). Leithwood et al. describe four patterns of leadership distribution
observed in schools:

Planful Alignment. In this pattern, leaders‘ tasks and functions result from prior,
planful thought by organizational members, and functions are rationally distributed in
ways comparable to Gronn‘s (2009) holistic notion of ―institutionalized practice.‖

Spontaneous Alignment. In this pattern, leadership tasks and functions are distributed
with little or no planning, and tacit or intuitive decisions determine who should
perform which leadership functions. Fortuitous, positive, short-term working
alliances evolve.

Spontaneous Misalignment. Here there are disjunctions among leadership functions,
causing unpredictable outcomes and negative effects on short- and long-term
organizational effectiveness and productivity.

Anarchic Misalignment. This pattern is similar to the condition Hargreaves and Fink
(2006) describe as anarchy: members of the organization reject or compete with one
another in making claims of leadership regarding decisions, priorities, and activities.
Recent scholarship suggests that leadership distribution may moderate the effects
of principal turnover on school culture. Hargreaves and Fink (2006) conclude that the
post-succession process is best managed when the departing leader leaves a legacy of
distributed leadership marked by shared vision, investment, and capacity that ensures the
sustainability of school improvement initiatives. This leads us to hypothesize that in
times of frequent principal turnover (leader changes every one, two, or three years)—
involving leaders shaped by different experiences, priorities, and leadership styles—
216
Boesse (1991); Rebhun (1995).
Harris (2009).
218
E.g., Gronn (2002); MacBeath (2009); and Spillane (2006).
217
169
teachers are encouraged (or forced) to take leadership into their own hands, and to
develop some stability by means of a self-sustaining professional culture that operates
independently of the principal. The result then will be distributed leadership in one form
or another.
Where teacher leadership evolves strategically (planned and aligned with school
goals), a self-sustaining culture can become both collaborative and productive. When
leadership distribution is neither planned nor aligned, then the self-sustaining culture
drifts, gradually loses its collective sense of vision and purpose, and becomes
increasingly balkanized; each teacher focuses on his or her classroom, works in relative
isolation from colleagues, and takes responsibility only for his or her own work. The
result is an ineffective organization of ―neglect‖ and ―anarchy,‖ where student
achievement may remain unchanged, or even deteriorate.
New Evidence
Method
We used quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the five questions
described in the Introduction to this section. Data from quantitative studies derive from
responses to questions we posed about average principal turnover rates, effects on school
culture, curriculum, and instruction, and student achievement. Data from qualitative
studies derive from responses to questions we posed about the potential for some patterns
of distributed leadership to mitigate the negative effects of rapid principal turnover, and
what, if anything, incoming principals might do, to minimize negative turnover effects.
Quantitative evidence. For this evidence we examined responses to 36 of the 104
items included in the first teacher survey. The construct for school culture comprises the
following seven items, ranked on a 6-point scale, using the stem To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the following statements:







Disruptions of instructional time are minimized.
Most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs, and attitudes
related to teaching and learning.
Students feel safe in our schools.
In our school, we have well defined learning expectations for all students.
Students in our school meet or exceed clearly defined expectations.
We provide opportunities for students to discuss the effects of intolerance on their
lives.
Our student assessment practices reflect our curriculum standards.
The construct for classroom, curriculum and instruction comprises the following
five items, ranked on a six-point scale, using the same stem:


I have sufficient written curricula on which to base my lessons.
My instructional strategies enable students to construct their own knowledge.
170



I maintain a rapid pace of instruction in my classes.
I feel adequately equipped to handle student behavior in my class.
Our school/district provides a rigorous core curriculum for most of our students.
The achieved sample for this sub-study was 2,570 teachers (a 78% response rate)
from a total of 80 schools in which four or more teachers completed usable surveys and
for which usable student achievement data were available. The principal survey provided
data on the number of principals in the school over the past 10 years for those same 80
schools.
To measure student achievement across schools, we collected data from state
websites. These data were school-wide results on state-mandated tests of language and
mathematics at several grade levels over three years (2003 to 2005). For purposes of this
study, a school‘s student achievement level is represented by the percentages of students
meeting or exceeding the proficiency level (usually established by the state) on language
and mathematics tests. We averaged these percentages across grades and subjects in order
to increase the stability of scores, producing in a single achievement score for each
school for each of three years.
Our data on student achievement for these schools covers only the most recent
three years, yet the turnover of principals is measured over the past 10 years. The premise
is that there would be a cumulative effect of principal turnover during this time, which
would appear as an overall low level of achievement in the schools in the most recent
three years.
Qualitative evidence. From the 40 schools included in the first round of site
visits, we selected the four with the highest principal-turnover rates as case study schools,
based on the principal survey question about the number of principals that those 40
schools had had over the past 10 years. Each of these schools was located in a different
state, and the states were widely distributed geographically. We then conducted NVivo
coding searches within the transcripts of the interviews with the principal and five
teachers in each of the four schools.
Principal Turnover: Frequency and Effects on Schools, Classrooms, and Students
Table 2.4.1 reports the means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities
(Cronbach‘s alpha) of variables for this sub-study. As the first row in this table indicates,
the average number of principals in the school over the past 10 years was 2.78, for an
average length of tenure of 3.6 years per principal. The standard deviation for this
measure is a relatively large (1.34).
171
Table 2.4.1
Summary of Survey Results
(N= 80 schools)
Variables
Mean
SD
Reliability
Principal Turnover
2.78
1.34
School Culture
4.34
.55
.83
Classroom Curriculum & Instruction
4.79
.29
.65
We calculated Pearson‘s correlation coefficients to assess the relationships
between meditating variables, the independent variable (the number of principals in the
school in the past 10 years), and the dependent variable (student achievement). Table
2.4.2 summarizes these relationships. Relationships among principal turnover and
measures of school and classroom conditions are negative.
Table 2.4.2
Relationships among the Variables
Variable
# Principals in last 10 yrs
School
Culture
-.37*
School Culture
Classroom Curriculum & Instruction
Classroom
Curriculum & Instruction
Student
Achievement
-.33*
-.17
.77**
.63**
.46**
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Principal turnover is moderately and negatively correlated with school culture and
with classroom curriculum and instruction; it has a weak negative relationship with
student achievement. School culture is strongly related to both curriculum and instruction
and student achievement; curriculum and instruction is moderately related to student
achievement.
Figure 8 summarizes the results of a path model (using LISREL) we used to
explore the relationships among these variables more precisely.
172
-.37*
Principal
Turnover
School
Culture
.68*
Student
Achievement
.75*
-.05
RMSEA = .00
RMR = .02
AGFI = .96
NFI = .99
Curriculum &
Instruction
-.06*
Total Effects on Achievement
Turnover:
-.24*
School Culture:
.64*
Curriculum & Instruction:
-.06*
Figure 8: Testing the mediated effects of principal turnover on student achievement
This model is a good fit with the data (RMSEA = .00; RMR = .02; AGFI = .96;
NFI = .99), and it explains 41% of the variation in student achievement. The total effects
of principal turnover explain 24% of the variation in student achievement. Principal
turnover has significant and moderately negative effects on school culture (-.37),
although school culture has moderately strong, significant, effects on student
achievement (.68). The effects of turnover on curriculum and instruction are insignificant,
and the measure of classroom curriculum and instruction is negatively, but very weakly,
related to student achievement. It is interesting to see that the partial correlations between
these mediating variables and student achievement are strong and positive, but the
addition of principal turnover to the model reduces the effect of curriculum and
instruction on student achievement to a very low level (-.06).
In sum, results suggest that principal turnover has significant negative effects on
student achievement. These effects are mediated more by school-level than classroomlevel conditions. The weaker impact of principal turnover on classroom variables might
suggest that teacher classroom practice is in some way buffered from direct effects of
changes in principal leadership. We speculate that teachers may continue to feel secure in
their classrooms, regardless of the school culture around them. While buffering of this
sort limits the negative effects of principal turnover, it may also limit positive effects of a
principal‘s improvement efforts.
Leadership Distribution and Leader Turnover Illustrated
Given the significant influence of principal turnover on student achievement,
mediated primarily by school culture, we developed four case studies to examine this
173
dynamic in greater detail and to learn what part patterns of distributed leadership play in
the relationships. The four schools are profiled below.
Culbertson Elementary School
Culbertson is an urban elementary school with an enrollment of just over 600
students, almost all of whom meet state achievement expectations on the grades 3-5
standardized tests in reading, science, and mathematics. At the time of our study, three
principals had been at the school in the last three years, and the current principal was
promoted to the post from a district intern position. High principal turnover had become a
challenge for the district, in part because a new state retirement policy had induced 20%
of the district‘s principals to retire in the year that a new option was announced. To deal
with the challenges of principal succession, district leaders established a number of
support mechanisms to help new principals acclimatize themselves in their new jobs;
these included monthly meetings and a mentoring program with retired principals.
Principal turnover in Culbertson had no measurable impact on student
performance, positively or negatively. From 2003 through 2006, the percentage of
students meeting or exceeding state norms held consistently to a range in the high
nineties across all grades and subjects.
The principal three years earlier had explicitly encouraged teachers to assume
leadership roles in the school, in accordance with district policies that supported the
designation and implementation of formal teacher-leader positions. The principal also
saw to it that this leadership distribution was both planful and well aligned with the
school‘s goals. By the time of our study, leadership had become distributed to a
considerable extent, and teacher-leaders were able to help introduce incoming principals
to the school culture. Since student achievement was not a source of concern in the
school, there was little pressure to bring about any radical changes in teaching and
learning. Consequently, new principals did not feel compelled to innovate either rapidly
or radically.
A planful alignment pattern of leadership distribution had stood the staff in good
stead through two succeeding principals. The teachers were able to work together, share
the leadership for that work, and sustain the learning of their students, despite changes in
principals. The current principal seemed to be in tune with this approach to distributed
leadership.
Molina Elementary School
Molina is a small elementary school in an urban community. At the time of our
study, 31% of the students in the district qualified for free and reduced-price lunches, and
the school had a 35% non-white (mostly Hispanic) population. Student achievement
scores were uneven across grades and subjects: strong in grade 3, but weak in grade 4;
strong in reading but not in writing. In the three years for which we had data, however,
overall levels of achievement had been improving.
174
State policy on principal retirement was in flux at the time of our study. This was
situation was encouraging some principals who were facing an uncertain future to get out
"while the getting is good." Over the five years prior to our study there had been a high
level of retirements across the district, and Molina had not been immune to this trend,
having had four principals in that period of time. District office staff remarked on early
retirement as an ongoing problem and a significant source of stress on the system‘s
capacity to train and replace its district and school leaders. The pressures of early
retirement—as many as 20% of the total number of principals in the district changing in
any one year—had spawned district initiatives to address the turnover problem. As a
result of a District Literacy Initiative, there had been a structural shift to create teacherleader Literacy Coaches in each school. Molina had five of these Literacy Coaches, with
an additional Literacy Coach position scheduled for the next year.
Cultural and emotional turmoil was apparent in Molina because principal turnover
had been accompanied by fundamental changes in philosophy and leadership style. The
four principals in five years at Molina had had different personalities and insufficient
time to establish trust and rapport. Long-serving support-staff members—familiar to
teachers, parents, and students—were able to take on certain leadership roles in light of
the annual change of principals. This case provides, accordingly, some evidence for our
expectation that greater distribution of leadership would ameliorate some negative effects
of rapid principal turnover. But life in schools is not shaped by a single variable. In the
case of Molina, a high rate of teacher turnover exacerbated the effects of rapid principal
turnover, thereby muting the potential values associated with more teacher leadership.
Molina‘s pattern of distributed leadership could best be described as spontaneous
misalignment. There was no planned effort to share leadership, nor was there a sense that
leadership as it evolved was being aligned with school goals. Despite the best efforts of
the teachers to provide leadership for their school, along with efforts by the district to
establish formal teacher-leadership positions, the combined effects of frequent principal
turnover and frequent teacher turnover made it impossible for this school to sustain any
momentum in its improvement efforts.
Blake Elementary School
Blake is a small elementary school in an inner-city district. At the time of our
study, a high proportion of its student population was black, and a significant proportion
of the community lived below the poverty line. Student achievement was not high;
achievement levels in grade 3 and 4 Communication Arts and grade 3 Math tests were at
or above state averages, but results for grade 4 and 5 Math and grade 5 Communication
Arts remained below state averages. The number of children achieving at the state
standard in literacy, however, had been increasing steadily over the past three years.
Three administrators had been appointed to Blake in seven years. There had also
been a significant number of new senior administrators in the district in the past two
years: a new superintendent and three new directors at the district level, and three new
administrators at the school level, across a total of seven schools.
175
Blake‘s story has much to do with a charismatic principal whose vision for a
Professional Learning Community (PLC) had shaped the school‘s identity, structure, and
culture. While the principal in position at the time of our study had not initiated the PLC
concept, she had chosen to carry on with it as the central feature of the school‘s shared
vision. Thus, the PLC provided the foundation for cultural and structural continuity from
the previous principal to the current principal.
Principal turnover did not result in cultural chaos or teacher alienation at Blake,
because there was a clear and planned focus for school culture and instruction. This
school-wide focus survived rapid principal turnover, partly because collaborative
structures were well established and accepted and partly because the new principal‘s
philosophy and practices supported the existing school culture. Blake therefore provides
another case of planful alignment in the distribution of leadership. Teachers at Blake had
developed a shared vision for the school and were able to sustain it despite the change in
leadership. Indeed, the new principal‘s support for the existing vision became a key
element in further developing a positive culture in this school.
Rhodes Middle School
Rhodes Middle School is located in a low-income community; at the time of our
study, 13% of the population fell below the poverty line, and 60% of the Rhodes students
qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. Four different principals had served at Rhodes
in four years, and the student and teacher populations were highly transient. The first of
the four principals believed strongly in site-based management and fostered a culture in
which teachers learned to rely on their own leadership to get things done. Theirs was an
autonomous teacher culture in which each staff member was encouraged to take personal
responsibility for her or his own classroom practice, but not much else. Collaboration was
not encouraged. Student achievement, however, had been consistently high over the
previous three years.
While many teachers at Rhodes seemed satisfied with their autonomous culture
and its contribution to sustaining their efforts through frequent principal turnover, the
principal current at the time of our study saw professional entrenchment and barriers to
administrator influence. This new principal set about changing the culture of the school,
without going so far as to dismantle its existing decision-making structures. She aimed
for a balance of authority between herself and the staff, given the instability caused by
frequent principal succession. She set out to establish a collective focus on instructional
practice and data-driven decision-making.
The school seemed to be poised on the cusp of moving from traditional forms of
teacher autonomy to a more planful pattern of leadership distribution. The approach of
the new principal was more directive than collaborative. But her intention was to create a
more collaborative culture, with teachers exercising more leadership across the school as
they learned to work together.
176
Across the Cases
All four schools experienced high rates of principal turnover in the time in
question—from a new principal every year, for three or four years, to one every two
years, for seven years. In all four schools there had been some attempt at distributing
leadership, but each school approached distribution differently, as the culture varied from
school to school. While the four schools seem to have little in common beyond rapid
principal turnover, two schools found ways to deal productively with changing
leadership, while two did not.
Culbertson took a deliberate approach to the distribution of leadership, driven by
a principal and district leaders committed to collaborative work and planfully aligned
leadership distribution. Blake built a strong professional community, also producing
planfully aligned patterns of leadership distribution capable of surviving changes in
leadership. In both cases, leadership was distributed among a number of teachers. Despite
frequent changes in principals, the supportive cultures developed in these schools
continued to thrive.
In the other two schools, there was less success with leadership distribution. In
Molina, the district‘s attempts to foster teacher leadership as one response to frequent
principal turnover ran afoul of frequent teacher turnover. In Rhodes, the efforts of an
earlier principal to foster a high degree of individual teacher autonomy had been
sufficiently successful that the principal in place at the time of our study was
experiencing considerable difficulty in her efforts to promote collaboration and more
leadership distribution. Teachers still remained independent, in a strong culture of
individual isolation.
In sum, these cases suggest the following:

Leadership distribution has the potential to moderate the negative consequences of
rapid principal turnover.

Principals have significant leverage in the distribution of leadership across their
schools.

Planfully aligned patterns of distributed leadership seem likely to contribute most to
school improvement efforts once they are established.

The challenge of fostering leadership distribution is greatly influenced by the existing
culture of the school; autonomous teacher cultures are strong sources of resistance to
leadership distribution efforts.

While rapid principal turnover has negative effects on student achievement ―on
average,‖ some individual schools are able to manage rapid turnover in ways that
prevent achievement decline. It seems very unlikely, however, that student
achievement will improve under most conditions associated with rapid principal
turnover.
177
Implications for Policy and Practice
Three implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Districts should aim to keep most principals in their schools for a minimum of
four years, and preferably five to seven years. Assuming the principal is working
productively with staff and other stakeholders on improving the school, more
frequent changes in principals typically results in wasted energy, dissipation of
scarce resources and considerable skepticism on the part of teachers that they will
receive the support they need when the change process begins to confront the
most difficult challenges.
2. Under conditions of rapid principal turnover, districts need to encourage incoming
principals to understand and respect the school-improvement work in which staff
members have previously been engaged. Incoming principals will likely have a
smoother transition if they see their job as continuing and refining that work.
Principals assigned to schools identified as being in need of being ―turned
around‖ are clearly exempted from this recommendation.
3. Incoming principals should not have the sole responsibility to encourage
distributed leadership in schools that have previously experienced rapid principal
turnover. Under such conditions, districts need to directly encourage and support
planfully aligned forms of leadership distribution, providing training and support
to staff members in carrying out shared leadership functions. District leaders have
a responsibility to help ensure a smooth transition from one principal to the next.
This can be done by clarifying the district‘s expectations for the job to be done by
the incoming principals, and by participating with teachers and the new principal
in initial discussions about expectations for the new principal‘s work. On their
own, teachers are in a weak and sometimes risky position with the incoming
principal, to argue for continuing attention to the initiatives they have been
working on with the outgoing principal and that are showing signs of progress.
178
2.5
Data Use in Districts and Schools: Findings and Limitations
Key Findings

District data-use practices have a substantial influence on principals‘ data-use
practices.

Most principals have and use considerable amounts of evidence about the status
of individual students and their student populations.

Very few principals have systematically-collected evidence about the school and
classroom conditions that would need to change for achievement to improve.

A slim majority of principals process their data in collaboration with their staffs
and call on district staff members and others with special expertise to help them
with data analysis and use.

When schools are considered in the aggregate, typical approaches to data use by
districts and principals have no measurable influence on student achievement. But
variations in data use, specifically in elementary schools, explain a significant
amount of variation in student achievement.

Leaders in high data-use schools have clear purposes for analyzing data. They
engage their staff collectively in data analysis, build internal capacity for this
work, and use data to solve problems, not simply to identify them.

Principals can play a key role in establishing the purposes and expectations for
data use. They can provide structured opportunities (collegial groups and time for
data use), sessions for data-use training and assistance, access to expertise, and
follow-up actions. Where principals do not make data use a priority—where they
do not mobilize expertise to support data use and create working conditions to
facilitate data use in instructional decision making—teachers are not likely to do it
on their own.
Introduction
A decade ago, it was disconcertingly easy to find education leaders who
dismissed student-achievement data and systematic research as having only
limited utility for improving schools or school systems. Today, we have come full
circle. It is hard to attend an education conference or read an education magazine
without encountering broad claims for data-based decision making.
179
Against a broad background of increased interest in educators‘ uses of data, we
were motivated to pursue this strand of our research by five broad issues. First, we aimed
to clarify state and district approaches to data use. Second, we wanted to better
understand the relationship between districts‘ and principals‘ orientations to evidencebased decision making. Compelling evidence now suggests that this relationship is a
central explanation for the how data are used in schools.219 Third, while principals and
teachers everywhere are being admonished to use more and different data in their
decision making,220 we were curious to know what their typical response to data use is.
Our fourth purpose was to better understand patterns of data use in schools where
evidence-based decision making had become a priority. Finally, we wanted to know
whether typical approaches to data use by districts and principals have any discernable
influence on student achievement. Almost all accountability-driven, large-scale reform
efforts assume that greater attention by districts and schools to systematically collected
data is a key lever for improving student performance. But evidence in support of this
assumption is thin and mixed.221 Perhaps, we surmised, there are important conditions to
be met or thresholds to be surpassed before such data use matters.
Current scholarship highlights educators‘ increasing reliance on data use at the
school and district levels. These reports often are based on case studies of one or a few
sites, chosen to exemplify positive stories of data use.222 Studies of this sort provide
insights about uses of data, organizational conditions (e.g., leadership, resources,
professional trust between teachers and between teachers and administrators) conducive
to data use, and ways in which data use can evolve and become more comprehensive and
institutionalized in ongoing work routines over time. The innovations and activity
surrounding data use are, however, quite recent; and the brief track record to date makes
it difficult to be confident about the effects of data use, particularly effects on student
achievement.
Prior Research
We framed data collection and analysis for this section of our research according
to five variables about which there is considerable prior evidence. In this framework,
summarized in Figure 9, student achievement is the dependent variable, influenced most
directly by the decisions and actions of school staffs, especially principals. Types of
evidence available to the school (often from the district) and existing conditions
influencing how data are interpreted and used are variables shaping the processes for
interpreting evidence by principals and their colleagues in their decisions and actions.
This framework acknowledges the reciprocity of relationships among these variables. For
example, the outcome of data interpretation processes might not be actions or decisions
aimed directly at student learning; instead, it might be a search for additional types of
219
Wohlstetter, Datnow & Park (2008).
E.g., Linn (2003).
221
Koretz (2005).
222
See, e.g., school and district case study examples in Mandinach & Honey (2008).
220
180
evidence considered crucial to decision making, or push-back on some external
influences on data use considered unhelpful by principals and teachers.
Types of Data (Breadth, Nature and Patterns of Use)
Breadth of data. Our conception of variation in the breadth of data used by
principals took, as its point of departure, the framework guiding our overall project.
Principals‘ actions or practices are determined by their thoughts, values, and feelings.
These internal states have antecedents: principals‘ own past experiences, knowledge, and
beliefs, as well as their interpretations of the consequences of their current practices for
the local and wider contexts in which they find themselves. Yeh (2006) has adopted a
similar interpretive perspective in his research on teachers‘ response to data from state
tests, with a focus on teacher attitudes, in particular.
Types of
Evidence
Processes for
Interpreting
Evidence
Decisions and Actions
 School
 Class
Student
Learning
Conditions
Influencing
Use of Evidence
Figure 9: Framework for understanding evidence-informed processes
The framework for our overall project also points to the mostly indirect influence
of principals‘ actions on students and on student learning.223 Such actions are mediated,
for example, by school conditions such as academic press,224 with significant
consequences for teaching and learning and for powerful features of classroom practice
such as teachers‘ uses of instructional time.225 Evidence-informed decision making by
principals, guided by this understanding of principals‘ work, includes having and using a
broad array of evidence about many things: key features of their school‘s external
223
e.g., Hallinger (1996).
Goddard et al. (2000a).
225
Resnick et al. (2007).
224
181
context; the status of school and classroom conditions mediating leaders‘ own leadership
practices; and the status of their students‘ learning.
Nature of data (informal vs. formal). The admonition to be ―more evidencebased‖ should not be taken literally. It is certainly not the case that teachers and
administrators have been making evidence-free decisions for the past hundred years. But
the evidence available to teachers and principals has often come from their impressions
of ―ordinary workplace practice‖; these typically narrative accounts of experience
―constitute a pervasive feature of workplace discourse and a resource for workplace
learning‖ (Little, 2007, p. 220).
We can‘t say a priori whether shifting the weight of emphasis from informal to
formal evidence for decision making will improve schools; it is an empirical question.226
The current emphasis on using student performance data to guide improvement efforts
also calls for greater attention by those in schools to measurable patterns of student
performance at the school level, or by student sub-groups, in addition to the conventional
interest in individual student needs and progress.
Furthermore, the systematically collected evidence available to most schools
today is almost entirely evidence about the current status of student achievement. In some
schools this consists almost entirely of externally mandated test data gathered toward the
end of the school year. While information about achievement is obviously critical for
schools, it has almost nothing to say about the causes of such achievement or the
strategies that might be useful for improving achievement levels. Furthermore, for data of
this sort, schools rely mainly on results from large-scale national or state testing
programs. Most of these programs focus only on a narrow band of objectives in the
formal curriculum; they have unknown levels of reliability at the school level; they are
cross-sectional in nature; and the results they yield become available to schools only after
lengthy time delays. 227 228
Patterns of data use. Based on a study of data-driven decision making in 36
schools, Ikemoto and Marsh (2007) developed a conceptual framework of four models of
school data use, varying by the complexity of the data used and the complexity of the
analysis and decision making in question. They labeled these models basic (simple data,
simple analysis, simple decision making), analysis-focused (simple data, complex
226
e.g., Heritage & Yeagley (2005).
Knapp et al. (2007); Leithwood & Levin (2005).
228
Computerized on-line data information systems are increasingly available for use by educators. These
systems store and provide easy access to a wide range of standardized and classroom-based assessment
data on students as individuals and in groups, as well as data about student attendance and demographic
variables. Indeed, in several of our site-visit districts, systems of this type were introduced in the final years
of our study. Beyond selected district or school case reports of exemplary use by developers and local
implementation champions (e.g., Mandinach & Honey, 2008), however, we are not aware of any research
that documents how widespread the adoption of these systems is, nor do we know of evidence about the
effectiveness of their implementation or their impact on instructional decision-making and student learning
on a large scale.
227
182
analysis, complex decision making), data-focused (complex types of data, simple
analysis, simple decision making), and inquiry-focused (complex types of data, complex
analysis, complex decision making). We found these dimensions of data use, if not the
archetypes, helpful in comparing data use across our site-visit districts and schools.
Conditions Influencing Data Use in Schools
Ikemoto and Marsh (2007) also have identified a set of school and district
conditions likely to support data use in schools. Developing these conditions requires
leadership, most obviously from principals,229 although others might certainly contribute.
The conditions include accessibility and timeliness of data; perceived validity of data;
staff capacity and support for considering data; time available to interpret and act on the
data; partnerships with external organizations for analyzing and interpreting data; and
tools for data collection and interpretation (procedures and instruments). Similar
conditions fostering data use in schools have been identified by Wilson (2004), Heritage
and Yeagley (2005), and Yeh (2006).
From a three-year case study of the uses of evidence related to instructional
decision-making at the district level, Coburn, Touré and Yamashita (2009) identified key
factors influencing the uses of data. These factors include the congruence of sources of
evidence with the prior beliefs of decision-makers, the content knowledge of individuals
using data to advocate alternative views, organizational structures that inhibit or promote
shared understanding of instructional matters, resource constraints, and the micropolitics
of authority and power in decision-making processes. With the exception of
micropolitical processes, these factors are similar to several of the conditions described
by Ikemoto and Marsh (2007), including perceived validity of data, staff capacity, and
organizational resources (e.g., time, contexts for collaborative work).
Certain forms of leadership and organizational culture also may foster data use,
particularly when they reflect norms and values supporting careful use of systematically
collected data (Ikemoto & Marsh, 2007), creating what Katz and his colleagues (2002)
refer to as an ―evaluation habit of mind‖ within schools. Justification for including this
condition in our analytic framework can also be found in evidence reported by Louis,
Febey, and Schroeder. They found that active efforts ―by district-level administrators to
mediate sense-making affected teachers‘ attitudes toward accountability policies and
standards-driven reform‖ (2005, p. 177). Firestone and Gonzalez (2007) also demonstrate
the quite different ways in which data are interpreted and used in schools and districts
depending upon whether dominant norms in district culture are oriented to accountability
or organizational learning.
Processes Used for Data Interpretation and Decision Making
Approaches to interpreting data vary. Two school leaders having access to the
same data may use different approaches for making sense of it, and some approaches will
be more productive than others. Ikemoto and Marsh (2007; see Patterns of data use,
above) provide a compelling case for the hierarchical nature of four such approaches in
terms of their value for school-improvement decisions. These approaches vary along five
229
Firestone & Gonzalez (2007); Wayman et al. (2006).
183
dimensions, in Ikemoto and Marsh‘s conceptualization; we summarize these below, along
with a sixth dimension we have added.
 Number of data sources: Variation on this dimension ranges from a single source
(e.g., an annual standardized reading assessment) to multiple sources (e.g., other
standardized tests and teacher-created assessments). Justification for considering this
dimension can be found in basic accounts of the limitations and biases inevitably
associated with any single type or source of data.230 Knapp and his colleagues (2007)
have described several mistakes schools can make if they rely on only one data source.
 Nature and extent of data analysis. While Ikemoto and Marsh (2007)
acknowledge that, in some circumstances, simple forms of data analysis might be quite
appropriate, less obvious but critical underlying explanations for results will sometimes
require more complex analysis. Disaggregating data by student groups, for example, is a
minimum requirement for pinpointing the potential sources of underperformance among
students in many school contexts. External standards or criteria used in the interpretation
of data may also add a valuable dimension of complexity.
 Who is involved in data interpretation and use? At the least productive end of this
dimension, one person (usually the school administrator) does most of the analysis and
interpretation and then reports the results to teachers. The most productive end of this
dimension entails using multiple participants in data analysis, interpretation, and decision
making. Participants may come together in what Wayman and colleagues (2006) call
collaborative data teams. These are professional learning communities with access to
information about their students‘ learning. Collaborative structures for making sense of
data have been recommended by many others, as well.231
 Engagement of special expertise. This dimension considers the nature and extent
of engagement by people with expert knowledge from outside the school staff—for
example, district staff with technical expertise in measurement or university faculty
members with specialties relevant to the content of particular assessments. At the least
productive end of this continuum, no specialists are used; at the most productive end,
experts are selected to provide assistance for well-defined reasons. The presence or
absence of expert knowledge may matter a great deal, regardless of its source. Coburn,
Touré, and Yamashita (2009) found, for example, that district-level educators‘ use of
evidence related to instruction was significantly influenced by their own content
knowledge about the issues in question (e.g., explanations for low math scores, best
approaches to reading instruction).
 Number of data points. This dimension focuses on data collected at one point in time or
data collected at several points in time. School district officials and principals may consider,
for example, evidence collected at one testing date or evidence collected at several points—
e.g., data on student growth against expected learning standards throughout the year, and
230
231
Brewer & Hunter (1989); Yin (1984).
E.g., Earl & Katz (2002); Heritage & Yeagley (2005); and Knapp et al. (2007).
184
from year to year. Longitudinal evidence that displays trends and trajectories has greater
potential than snapshot data for informing educators‘ school-improvement activity.
 Extent of use. In addition to the above five dimensions along which principals and
schools may vary in their uses of data, we also inquired about extent of use, a broader
indicator of the prevalence of data use in schools. Within this dimension we incorporate
variability in the types and number of organizational contexts in which data are used
(e.g., school-improvement planning meetings, grade team meetings, data retreats).
Data Use and Student Learning
Evidence about the impact of data use on student learning is still quite meager; it
has to be cobbled together from different strands of research. The most compelling line of
research focuses on teachers‘ use of formative or ―just- in-time evidence‖232 about
students‘ learning to shape their own instruction. Black and Wiliam‘s (2004) review of
more than 250 studies serves as the primary source for the claim that formative
assessment, in Popham‘s words, ―can fundamentally transform the way a teacher
teaches‖ (2008, p. vii).
Evidence is mixed at best about the impact of large-scale state and district testing
programs on student achievement. Koretz (2005), for example, claims that evidence
about the effects of assessment-based accountability is both sparse and discouraging.
Indeed, a vigorous critique of the effects of large-scale assessment has developed as the
tests in question have become increasingly high-stakes for students, teachers, and
administrators.233 On the other hand, in a comparison of high- and low-accountability
states, Carnoy and Loeb (2002) found significantly greater achievement in eighth-grade
mathematics for students in high-accountability states, with no difference in retention or
high school completion rates.
Some evidence from research on effective schools and school districts making
improvement shows that data-informed decision making, with an emphasis on data about
student progress and outcomes, is characteristic of district-level leadership in these
settings.234 Coburn, Touré, and Yamashita‘s (2009) case study of data use in one school
district reveals, however, that educators and other interested parties may use of
assessment data and other forms of evidence symbolically rather than instrumentally, as
different policy actors attempt to influence decisions to reflect their preferences. This
finding challenges the simplistic view that data use for school improvement is a
straightforward, objective process.
New Evidence
To better understand the four broad issues motivating this strand of our research,
we undertook complementary sub-studies using qualitative (site-visit interviews) and
232
Erickson (2007).
E.g., McNeil (2000b) ; Mintrop (2004).
234
E.g., Cawelti & Protheroe (2001); Murphy & Hallinger (1988); and Togneri & Anderson (2003).
233
185
quantitative (surveys, student achievement measures) data at the district and/or school
levels.

Sub-study one focused on the types and nature of data use by principals in their
decision making; district influences on data-informed decision making by principals;
and the relationship between school data use and variability in student achievement.

Sub-study two focused on data use and support for data use in schools and at the
district level, along with case studies of six site-visit schools identified from our
surveys as high data-use schools.
While our research questions varied for each analysis, they all employed the Ikemoto and
Marsh framework as a common organizer for analysis and discussion.
The discussion that follows integrates findings from each sub-study where appropriate.
Method
Sub-study one. Interview data collected from 27 principals during the second
round of site visits provided the qualitative evidence for this sub-study. While these
interviews were relatively open-ended, our analysis of them was explicitly guided by the
framework described above. Our quantitative evidence consisted of responses collected
from 3,969 teachers and 107 principals during the first round of surveys (for a response
rate of approximately 70%). The school was the unit of analysis. Data from each of the
107 schools included responses from the principal and seven or more teachers. Five
questions on the principal survey asked about the extent of their districts‘ approach to
data use; four questions inquired about principals‘ own approach to data use; and two
questions on the teacher survey asked teachers about their principals‘ approach to data
use.
Data about annual levels of achievement in literacy and mathematics provided
the final source of evidence for this analysis. These data, obtained from each school's
website, derived from state testing programs. We explored the relationship between
variations in data use and student achievement using average annual achievement
measures. Following Linn‘s (2003) advice for generating stable achievement measures,
we represented each school‘s performance by the combined mathematics and language
scores for all grades tested, averaged over three years. We also examined mathematics
and language scores separately.
We did not select schools for sub-study one on the basis of their data-use
practices. Rather, we selected them to represent the normal distribution of schools on
such variables as size, student SES, and school level, but weighted more heavily in favor
of schools serving high-needs students. We assume that the data-use practices portrayed
by our data are typical of many schools across the country.
Sub-study two. Here we examined what district administrators (e.g.,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, curriculum and assessment directors) from the
18 site-visit districts had to say about data use for decision making at the district and
186
school levels. For this analysis all district administrator transcripts across the three site
visits were reviewed. Comments related to evidence use and factors affecting data use
were collected using the Ikemoto and Marsh (2007) schemas of data use conditions and
processes as a framework for organizing the data prior to undertaking a more in-depth
inductive analysis of findings within those dimensions.
We also used items about data use from Round One of the teacher and principal
surveys to measure the extent of data use in schools. We sorted site-visit schools into
high (one standard deviation or more above the mean), medium, and low (one standard
deviation below the mean) data-use groups, and we selected six high data-use schools for
case study analysis of the interview data from principals and from teachers. This sample
comprised five elementary schools and one middle school from five districts located in
four of the nine states. The analytical process adhered to that described above, except
that case studies of data use were constructed for each school and then compared across
the six schools to draw greater insight.
Results
State Approaches to Data Use
To explore this issue we used data from sub-study two. The U.S. government and
the states have created an accountability context in which data are a prominent feature.
District leaders play a key role in determining how data are actually used in their districts.
They model data use in district decision making; they set expectations for data use in
school-improvement activities, and monitor the efforts that follow; they make use of
supplementary tools to facilitate data use (e.g., data reports for schools, curriculumembedded assessment instruments of student learning); and they mobilize expertise
(locally developed or accessed externally) to help principals and teachers use data
properly in decisions they make about improving student learning and school results.
Very few principals are deeply and skillfully engaged in data use on their own, and
isolated engagement is not sustainable in the face of staff turnover.
Superintendents acknowledge that federal and state standards and accountability
systems have created a situation in which district and school personnel cannot ignore
evidence about students who are struggling or failing to meet mandated standards for
academic performance, as reflected in test results and other indicators of student success
(e.g., attendance, graduation rates). With few exceptions, the district leaders we
interviewed describe this as a positive turn of events, though they are not all equally well
supported by their state education agencies in local efforts to make use of these and other
kinds of performance data.
Respondents frequently identified the following issues associated with state
expectations and support for data use:

whether or not state assessment data are made available in a timely manner that
enables local educators to make meaningful use of data
187

whether or not state data reports provide sufficient detail to enable local educators to
identify specific curriculum expectations that are and are not being met by individuals
and sub-groups of students

whether or not the state provides diagnostic and formative assessment tools aligned
with state curriculum standards to help school personnel track student progress and
provide assistance during the year

whether or not the state education agency and/or state supported education service
units have sufficient expertise to respond to local needs for effective data use

the compatibility of state assessments and supplementary assessments that districts
develop or adopt to compensate for gaps in the state system
Relationships between District and School Approaches to Data Use
Districts differed in their approaches to and support for data-based decision
making. The differences reflect differences in state accountability systems; they also
reflect differences in how district leaders use the data resources provided by the states,
and in how they compensate for perceived deficiencies.
We examined data from interviews with district and school administrators
concerning district data use. The fit of any district to Ikemoto and Marsh‘s typology of
approaches to data use (basic, analysis-focused, data-focused, and inquiry-focused) is
imperfect. However, the distinctions Ikemoto and Marsh draw are useful for describing
how district leaders approach and support the use of data. We highlight salient
similarities, differences, and trends in the complexity of data use from a district
perspective.
In all districts, leaders were attentive to state test results and other required
accountability measures (e.g., graduation rates, attendance)—for individual schools and
for the district in relation to state proficiency standards and AYP targets. Some district
leaders also gathered data from schools using district performance benchmarks and
indicators. At a minimum, leaders used these data to identify concerns about the
performance of students overall in selected curricular areas, or about specific schools and
groups of students. Most districts supplemented state test data with other kinds of student
assessments—norm-referenced tests, e.g., and diagnostic and formative assessments of
individual student needs.
Diagnostic and formative assessments are meant to be used by school personnel to
identify students requiring special program interventions (e.g., remedial programs,
tutoring) or more differentiated instruction in the classroom. It is typically the district that
mobilizes access to these assessment tools. We encountered variability in the extent to
which districts and schools rely on state diagnostic and formative assessment instruments,
commercial assessment instruments, or district-developed instruments.
188
Our evidence shows a trend toward increasing the array of data that district and
school personnel consult in making decisions. Beyond the practical challenges of training
people about how to interpret data and making time for them to do it, districts faced a
major challenge in issues of compatibility and alignment among elements of assessment
systems. To the extent that districts and schools are accountable for meeting state
performance standards, any assessments that are not clearly linked to performance on
those standards is problematic.
This problem is less evident in districts that have developed curricula well aligned
to state standards, and that have succeeded in developing curriculum-embedded
diagnostic and formative assessments of individual student progress. In these districts,
data generated from regular assessments by classroom teachers are aligned with state
standards, and it is likely to provide guidance for interventions that will foster improved
performance according to those standards.
Districts also varied in their expectations of and support for the people assigned to
lead, or participate, in the analysis of data. District size was clearly a factor here.
Whereas large districts were likely to employ assessment and evaluation specialists
(individuals or teams), small districts were more likely to rely on district administrators
or curriculum directors with expertise in assessment matters. Small districts also were
more likely to draw upon expert advice and assistance provided by curriculum and
assessment specialists from state-supported education service centers.
District leaders recognized the need to develop capacity for data use among
school personnel, particularly in decisions about school-improvement initiatives and
instructional programs. We observed what seems to be a progression in district
approaches to developing that capacity. In some settings district leaders reported a shift:
initially, an emphasis on developing principals‘ expertise in data use; next, an emphasis
on training selected teachers in each school as resident experts; and, more recently, an
emphasis on encouraging and supporting data use by classroom teachers, working in
teams.
Districts varied in the complexity of the data analyses they called for. In part, this
variation reflects the level of detail provided in state data reports; it also reflects what
district leaders do (or do not do) to compensate for perceived deficiencies in those
reports. Some states do not provide test results in a form that makes it easy for principals
and teachers to do an item analysis showing where students did not perform well, and
which curriculum standards are linked to those test items. In these cases, school
personnel were likely to make superficial use of state data—identifying broad areas of
concern, but with little understanding of specific needs for improvement—unless the
district were to provide special assistance with the task.
Even states do provide data in a form that allows for item analysis, some districts
stop short of providing schools with strategies and tools needed to investigate underlying
factors that might be causing identified problems. In the few districts that exemplified an
inquiry-focused approach to data use (in Ikemoto and Marsh‘s terms), district leaders
189
posed questions and then proceeded to explore them with existing and new data, as
needed. In one district, the superintendent asked how many students were reaching Grade
5 without reading proficiently, and why? District leaders uncovered a pattern of low
teacher expectations and social promotion in the primary grades. This led to a series of
interventions: a standards-based report card, enforcement of promotion policies, and inservice training and communication with teachers about raising expectations for young
children‘s learning
We observed one other shift in the evolution of data use. In a few districts, district
and school leaders reported that analysis of trend data by district and/or state assessment
specialists had led to the identification of early indicators of students academically at risk,
based on test scores or other factors (e.g., family circumstances), in lower grade levels.
While state education agency specialists had made tools available for trend analysis in
one of the states we sampled, the shift toward assembling and making trend data
available to district and school personnel has been largely a district-level initiative. This
has become possible thanks to the growing availability of software that enables educators
to store and retrieve longitudinal data on students, individually or by groups. (While
access to trend data is increasing, however, district and school personnel were more apt to
talk about its availability and potential than its use).
Types of Data Used by Principals and Teachers
Principals across the sample of site-visit schools confirmed the extensive use of
systematically collected evidence about student achievement. All but one principal
referred to state-mandated assessment results. Sixteen of the 27 principals mentioned
district-mandated measures of student achievement. A few talked about the development
of diagnostic and formative assessments, aligned with state and district curriculum
standards, used by teachers to track student performance. These data were often used to
identify and provide targeted interventions for struggling students. High data-use schools,
particularly, emphasized the development and systematic use of diagnostic and formative
assessments of student learning.
Principals also referred to evidence about their students as a group, including
student mobility rates, attendance rates, graduation rates, proportion of students eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch, students ―at risk,‖ and students with handicaps of various
sorts. At a minimum, they used this sort of data in compliance with policy requirements
for reporting student test results and for allocating students and district resources to
categorically prescribed programs, such as Title I. Less frequently, school and district
personnel used background information for help in interpreting student and school
performance data. This more complex use of data was more likely in high-data use
contexts.
Principals and teachers in some districts reported the adoption of computerized
data management systems, and the potential these systems suggested for displaying and
using trend data on student performance. But they talked more about the added workload
involved in entering data into the systems than about actual retrieval, analysis, and use of
trend data for decision making.
190
When we asked about data use for decision making related to improvement in the
quality of teaching and learning, principals across the site-visit schools spoke mostly
about student assessment data, not about data on teacher performance or the need for
professional support. Some principals, however, reported that student performance data
(particularly formative data at the classroom level) related to targeted schoolimprovement goals (e.g., for reading, writing) did enter into their discussions with
teachers during regular teacher supervision processes.
A few principals mentioned unobtrusive methods of learning about what was
happening in classrooms through workplace discussions with teachers individually or in
teacher teams (e.g., grade-level, subject teams, professional learning community groups).
Several described observations they were able to make regarding teachers' instructional
practices and students' responses during informal classroom walk-throughs (which appear
to be an increasingly common administrative practice in schools). In high data-use
schools, principals were more likely to connect teacher supervision processes and the
more informal observations and conversations to specific instructional improvement
goals and initiatives.
No one talked about aggregating information about individual teacher
performance, from formal or informal supervision processes, for use in decisions about
improvement goals and progress. Perhaps principals did not routinely think of the
information they were assimilating through observation and talk about teaching practice
as "data." From an outsider‘s perspective, however, observation and talk certainly could
yield evidence relevant to administrative decisions.
In sum, we offer two general observations. First, principals and teachers had
considerable amounts of evidence about the status of individual students and their student
populations, and they used it in various ways. But they had little formal evidence about
the organizational conditions that might need to change if classroom and school
performance were to improve. Second, high and low data-use schools differed little in
respect to the data available to them. Differences were more evident in the uses schools
made of the available data.
Patterns of Data Use in High Data-Use Schools
Guided by Ikemoto and Marsh‘s (2007) framework, we used evidence from substudy two to describe patterns of data use, especially in high use schools.
Complexity. The scope, frequency, and complexity of data use were greater in
high data-use schools, as were the potential contributions of data use to improvement in
teaching and learning. Principals in most schools, for example, cited state test results as a
factor in setting school-improvement goals. The number of sites where principals and
teachers were actively using data to monitor the outcomes of school-improvement plans,
however, was more limited.
Teachers and principals in many schools reported using diagnostic assessment
instruments as a basis for identifying struggling students and placing them in remedial
programs at the beginning of the school year. School personnel in higher data-use schools
191
were more likely to report using formative assessments of student progress at intervals
across the school year; they were also more likely to rely on cyclical decisions about
which students needed additional help through remedial or enrichment programs, afterschool tutoring, and differentiated instruction in the classroom. Less frequently,
principals and teachers reported using data in making decisions about professional
development plans or in the course of conversations with parents about student
performance and programming.
Specific purposes. Teachers have always evaluated their students for the purpose
of grading and marking report cards. Incorporating student performance data into
decisions about instruction has been less common. That use of data, we found, was more
likely to occur in settings where district and school leaders had linked data use to specific
purposes. In some schools, for example, teachers used diagnostic and formative
assessment data to make decisions about student placement in remedial reading or math
programs, or in school-based tutoring programs. Principals arranged in-service training to
increase teachers‘ repertoires of instructional strategies in order to foster differentiated
instruction in subject areas targeted for improvement.
Participants. Use of data was largely a collective activity in schools. It happened
in grade team meetings, subject groups, professional learning community groups,
committees convened to assess and monitor needs for at-risk students, school leadership
or improvement teams, or in whole-staff events, such as data retreats and faculty
meetings.
In some schools, inquiry-oriented data use was being modeled by the principal,
but had not yet evolved into a more collective activity involving teachers, as well. The
principal in one school, for example, did her own investigation of why so many Hispanic
students entering the school at Grade 3 had not moved on to English medium classrooms,
as expected, by Grade 6, and she presented her findings and plans to her staff. In another
school, the principal sought out comparison data on state test results from other schools
in an effort to learn why his schools‘ performance rating had slipped below the state‘s
exemplary rating, and he took action based on his analysis.
Sources of expertise. Our interview data point to five potential sources of
expertise in data use in schools: central office personnel (superintendents, curriculum or
assessment specialists); state-supported regional education center specialists; principals;
key teachers trained to serve as assessment and data experts; and classroom teachers in
general. In lower data-use schools educators tended to depend on external expertise, or to
rely on the principal or a key teacher (e.g., counselor, literacy coach) as the resident data
expert. In higher data-use schools, expertise was more widely distributed. Principals and
teachers reported increasing efforts to develop the capacity of teachers to engage
collectively in data analysis for instructional decision making, supported by but not
dependent on other experts. Data use was often the focus of professional learning
community initiatives. Districts contributed by offering training in the use of curriculumlinked classroom assessments, school-wide data analysis events, coaching of teacher
192
teams (grade or subject teams, professional learning community groups), and the
purchase and training in the use of data software .
Key role of principal. Principals played a key leadership role in establishing
purposes and expectations for data use. They also provided structured opportunities for
data use (collegial groups and time), learning about data use through training and
assistance, access to expertise, and follow-up actions. Principal leadership in this respect
was crucial. Where principals do not make data use a priority—mobilizing expertise to
support data use and create conditions to facilitate data use in instructional decisionmaking—teachers are not doing it on their own. We did see examples in some schools of
principals providing leadership for data use in the absence of well organized district-level
leadership and support. Overall, however, the scope and complexity of data use in
schools mirrored the data use orientations, practices, expectations, and support shown by
district office leaders.
Problem solving. In all the schools we studied, school personnel were using
student performance data to comply with external accountability requirements and to
identify problems at the school, student sub-group, or individual student levels. However,
principals and teachers in only a few settings had progressed beyond using data for
problem identification to using data for problem solving. Principals and teachers who had
turned to problem solving were gathering and analyzing data in order to understand the
causes or factors related to the problems in question and to monitor the effects of
interventions implemented in order to ameliorate those problems.
In one elementary school, for example, the principal and teachers identified
improvement in children‘s expository writing as a school goal. The principal mobilized
teachers to develop mid-year writing prompts to supplement beginning- and end-of-year
assessments developed by the district. She called on district consultants to provide inservice training for teachers, not only on the use and interpretation of assessments based
on the district‘s standards-based writing rubric but also on teaching methods associated
with identified goals for improvement in writing. She organized the teachers into
professional learning communities dedicated to studying student progress and the effects
of teacher interventions. And she and the teachers implemented a process whereby
teachers interviewed students about their responses to the strategies for teaching writing
that teachers were using.
Challenges. On the face of it, the push toward using increasingly complex types
of data and increasingly complex analyses to inform decisions seems like a good idea.
But we observed tensions in some schools between traditional norms of decision-making
(reliance on established expertise) and the recent move toward decisions informed by
evidence. The tension was especially notable in settings where districts mandated the use
of computer-based data management systems to record (and potentially retrieve and use)
many forms of assessment information, student characteristics, and program placement
data (e.g., by grade, classroom, sub-group population) over time. Teachers talked about
data overload, emphasizing the time required to enter information into these systems as
well as the time and expertise required to retrieve and interpret it. It often remained
193
unclear what specific purposes these systems were to serve. Tension also surfaced when
school or district leaders called for data-informed decisions to be made in areas where
those decisions had traditionally been made by teachers on the basis of their individual
and collective expertise. This issue was most salient in schools where the vast majority
of students were already performing at high levels.
Effects of Data Use on Student Achievement
We used quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the relationship between
data use and student achievement. The quantitative analysis focused on responses to
principal and teacher surveys and on our measures of student achievement in literacy and
mathematics. First we entered three measures of data use (principals’ view of district data
use, their own data use, and teachers’ perceptions of principal data use), as a block, into a
regression equation. We entered the four demographic variables (student diversity,
poverty, school level and school size) in the final equation. None of the measures of data
use had a significant effect on student achievement when added to the equation on their
own, nor did they have any unique explanatory value when combined with the four
demographic measures in the final equation.
The demographic variables explained about 19% of the variance in student
achievement, with school level and diversity each explaining about 5% of that variance.
We used the same variables for another analysis that reversed the order of entry for the
data use and demographic variables. The results were essentially the same. We conducted
a third analysis with these variables, using only the elementary schools (52). In this
analysis, data-use variables did have a significant effect on achievement, explaining 19%
of the variance with the first equation [F(3,51) = 5.03, p<.05]. The explained variation
increased to 24% in the second equation with the demographic measures, but only
perceptions of district use had a significant effect. However, the reduction of the number
of cases (to fewer than 10 per variable for the regression analysis) limits the reliability of
this result.
Given this weak statistical evidence of positive relationships between student
achievement and district or school data use (as reflected in the principal and teacher
survey items), we turned to our qualitative data, which provided the following insights:

The availability of student assessment data in the context of current federal, state,
and district accountability requirements is causing district and school personnel to
justify their goals and plans for improvement, focusing in particular on students
and schools that are not meeting standards-based performance expectations and
targets.

The potential for these focused improvement plans to make a difference in the
quality of student learning is highly dependent on the degree to which local
educators are able to align local curriculum, teaching, and assessment practices
with the external measures against which they are being held to account.
194

District and school efforts to improve student learning are more likely to have a
positive effect when the data available and the analysis performed by local
educators go beyond the mere identification of problem areas to an investigation
of the specific nature of the problem, and factors contributing to it, for the
students and settings where it is situated.

Improving teaching and learning with the use of data is only as effective as are the
insights gained with data analysis and the consequent actions taken regarding the
problem and how it might be solved.
Our quantitative and qualitative findings lead us to speculate that there may be both a
lower and an upper threshold beyond which increased or improved use of data by school
and/or district personnel simply will not make much difference. One of the large, lowSES urban districts in our sample, for example, had been classified under AYP
regulations as in need of district-level intervention by the state, because so many of its
schools were not meeting AYP targets. In this situation, it seems likely that there are
fundamental social, resource, and perhaps leadership issues affecting student engagement
and performance in schools, such that significant improvement without changes in those
fundamental conditions is unlikely, even through curricular and instructional
improvements informed by detailed analyses of assessment data.
On the other end of the spectrum, our sample included districts and schools that
were performing at high levels relative to state performance standards. In such a setting,
there may be a saturation point beyond which additional forms of data or expectations for
data use simply do not add much value—only more work. In these situations the real
imperative for improvement may have more to do with rethinking and redefining the
goals for student learning than with increasingly complicated patterns of data use.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Four implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Districts are encouraged to spend less time ensuring that schools have large
amounts of data and more time helping principals and teachers figure out how
such data might help them do the job they are trying to do. In addition to multiple
measures of student achievement, most principals had access to data about
background characteristics of their student populations, including socioeconomic
status, poverty, and diversity. No doubt these characteristics account for
significant variation in achievement in typical schools. Indeed, in our sample of
schools, these variables far outweighed the effects of principals‘ data use. So the
challenge is to transform data not only into actionable evidence, but also to help
principals understand the implications of such evidence for their improvement
efforts.
195
2. Districts and schools would benefit from collecting data about local family
educational cultures – norms, beliefs, values, and practices reflecting families‘
dispositions toward schooling and their role in it. Many elements of such cultures
(e.g., parental expectations for children‘s success at school) are malleable in
response to school intervention and make quite significant contributions to student
achievement (Hattie, 2009). But we saw little evidence of districts or schools
collecting systematic evidence about these variables.
3. Districts should work with school principals to help expand the range of highquality data available to schools in order to more fully encompass the range of
variables implicated in schools‘ problem-solving efforts. Very few principals had
systematically-collected evidence about the school and classroom conditions that
would need to change for their students‘ achievement to improve. Many of these
conditions are evident in other strands of our larger study including, for example,
teachers‘ dispositions toward collaboration, teacher efficacy, trust, academic
press, and disciplinary climate.
4. While districts do need to help all schools increase the sophistication of their datause processes, priority should be given to helping secondary schools. A slim
majority of principals processed their data in collaboration with their staffs and
called on district staff members and others with special expertise to help them
with data analysis and use, as normative theory on this matter recommends. But
the typical approaches to data use by districts and principals had no measurable
influence on student learning across school levels in the aggregate. In elementary
schools, however, data use may account for a significant proportion of the
variation in student achievement, over and above the effects of student diversity,
poverty, and school size.
196
2.6
District Approaches to Improving Teaching and Learning
Key Findings
District policies and practices around instruction are sufficiently powerful that they
can be felt, indirectly, by teachers as stronger and more directed leadership behaviors
by principals. Higher performing districts tend to be led by district staff who:

Communicate a strong belief in the capacity of teachers and principals to improve
the quality of teaching and learning, and in the district‘s capacity to develop the
organizational conditions needed for that to happen (high collective efficacy).

Build consensus about core expectations for professional practice (curriculum,
teaching, leadership).

Differentiate support to principals in relation to evidence of compliance and skill
in implementing the expectations, with flexibility for school-based innovation

Set clear expectations for school leadership practices, and establish leadershipdevelopment systems to select, train, and assist principals and teacher leaders
consistent with district expectations.

Provide organized opportunities for teachers and principals to engage in schoolto-school communication, focusing on the challenges of improving student
learning and program implementation.

Develop and model strategies and norms for local inquiry into challenges related
to student learning and program implementation.

Coordinate district support for school improvement across organizational units
(e.g., supervision, curriculum and instruction, staff development, human
resources) in relation to district priorities, expectations for professional practice,
and a shared understanding of the goals and needs of specific schools.
Introduction
This chapter examines ways in which districts foster improvements in teaching
and learning. We assumed at the outset (1) that successful districts focus on and support
efforts to improve teaching and learning and (2) that districts are not all alike in the ways
in which they embody this focus in policies and actions. Our analysis supports both of
these assumptions.
197
Our findings also suggest that differences between districts, regarding efforts to
improve teaching and learning, cannot be ascertained merely by asking administrators
and specialists to articulate their priorities. All district leaders believe that they focus on
instruction, but we found substantial variation from district to district in the levels of skill
and understanding with which they address this focus. To describe and analyze interdistrict differences it is necessary to examine actual practices related to curriculum and
instruction, and the interaction of those practices with other strands of district-level action
and influence.
Prior Evidence
A number of studies in the 1970s and 1980s documented differences in districtlevel orientations and approaches to educational change. Berman and McLaughlin (1977)
distinguished districts in terms of bureaucratic, opportunistic, or problem-solving
motivations of district authorities. Not surprisingly, they found that teachers and
principals implemented and developed new programs and practices more effectively in
districts that approached change with a problem-solving orientation. Rosenholtz (1989)
differentiated between ―stuck‖ and ―moving‖ districts in her investigation of teachers‘
workplace conditions and change. More effective schools were located in districts that
give a higher priority to improving teaching and learning. Berman et al. (1981) reached a
similar conclusion. They distinguished among four district roles in the school
improvement process: controlling (district regulates what is to be done, how, and by
whom); directive (district sets goals, establishes a master plan, and controls funds, but
leaves some discretion for schools to determine how to implement the plan and achieve
the goals); facilitative (district gives schools autonomy and support to decide on their
own needs, goals, and programs); and neglect (district provides no special guidance or
support to schools). Schools in facilitative districts did the best job of identifying and
addressing school needs and approaches to change.
Others have focused on the link between strategy and effect in district efforts to
improve schools. Louis (1989), drawing from a survey and case-study investigation of
initiatives in urban secondary schools, identified four district-level approaches to school
improvement: innovation implementation (uniform processes and outcomes),
evolutionary planning (uniform processes, variable outcomes), goal-based accountability
(variable processes, uniform outcomes), and professional investment (variable processes
and outcomes). Like Berman et al., Louis emphasized the importance of relationships
between schools and districts, as evident in levels of bureaucratic control (rules and
regulations) and organizational coupling (e.g., shared goals, community, joint planning
and coordination).
The issue of top-down versus bottom-up approaches to improvement has a long
history. Massell and Goertz (2002) described alternative, and reportedly successful, topdown and bottom-up district strategies for change and improvement, with the implication
that no best way can be generalized to all settings. Spillane (2002) found that district
leaders‘ approaches to facilitating implementation of state curriculum policy are shaped
198
in part by their conceptions of teacher learning: quasi-behaviorist, situated, and quasicognitive. Other research has pointed to the possibility that top-down and bottom-up
approaches need not be viewed as alternatives, but can be combined.235
Recent research on the district role in school-improvement activity has focused
increasingly on the identification of specific district-level policies, actions, and conditions
that are related to improvement in teachers‘ and students‘ performance. Much of this
research converges on a common set of policies, actions, and conditions associated with
district-wide improvement and effectiveness, as described in section 2.2, above.236
Findings from this research are consistent with investigations that have focused
specifically on the actions of superintendents and other senior administrators.237
In sum, districts vary in how they understand and approach the task of improving
teaching and learning. However, much of the research bearing on this point was
undertaken prior to the era of standards and accountability-driven reform that began to
take shape in the 1990s and was universalized in the United States under the federal No
Child Left Behind Act. It remains to be seen whether districts will differ markedly from
one another or converge on common approaches as they work to improve teaching and
learning in this new policy context.
Historically, school districts have supported schools differentially according to
differences in school types (e.g., elementary, middle, high schools) and compliance
requirements specified by legislated categorical differences in students and programs
(e.g., Title I, ELL). The latter categories of support are rationalized in terms of the
perceived challenges schools face in serving certain categories of students. Contemporary
accountability policies have created the added expectation that districts will differentiate
support to schools on the basis of achievement results from state testing programs and
other accountability measures, with particular attention to be given to schools where large
numbers of students are not meeting standards of proficiency. Exactly how that
expectation plays out in school districts has not been systematically studied. On the one
hand, districts may simply be complying with specified interventions to schools that fail
to meet Adequate Yearly Progress targets. On the other hand, school district leaders may
be developing and implementing their own strategic responses to various school needs for
improvement, in conjunction with NCLB and state-mandated interventions.
New Evidence
Method
We obtained data for this component of our study from the second round of
principal and teacher surveys and from evidence collected in interviews during all three
rounds of our site visits to 18 districts.
235
Elmore & Burney (1998).
Anderson (2006); Campbell & Fullan (2006); Cawelti & Protheroe (2001); Hightower et al. (2002).
237
Murphy & Hallinger (1988); Waters & Marzano (2006).
236
199
Survey analysis. The second principal survey contained six items intended to
measure principals‘ perceptions of the districts‘ focus on and support for improvements
in teaching and learning. We used these items to address two questions:
1. How do principals assess the emphasis given to improving teaching and learning by
their district administrators?
2. Does the district‘s emphasis on teaching and learning affect the principal‘s
instructional leadership behavior?
We analyzed the responses to these six items descriptively, and we developed a
scale that combined them.
 District focus on instruction scale. We added standardized scores for the individual
measures. The Alpha for the scale is .89. To examine the question of how district
policies and practices in the area of instructional improvement are reflected at the
building level, we used teacher assessments of their principals‘ instructional
leadership from the second survey.238
In addition, we used the scale measuring teachers‘ perceptions of their principal‘s
instructional leadership behavior, which was described in detail in Chapter 1.2.
 Principal instructional leadership scale. Six items in the teacher survey measured the
frequency of principal instructional leadership behaviors on a five-point scale ranging
from never to 10 or more times. These included discussed instructional issues with
you, observed your classroom instruction, and provided or located resources to help
staff improve their teaching. We added the standardized measures, and produced a
scale with an alpha of .94.
Site interview analysis. All three of the site-visit protocols used in the individual
interviews probed for district priorities and strategies. We constructed case studies of 12
of the 18 districts, focusing on two strands of analysis:
1. district improvement efforts and state policy influence
2. district-wide goals and support systems for school improvement
Our selection of districts for case analysis was purposive; we sought to increase
the variability of district characteristics, and we drew upon the research team‘s
knowledge of the sites. For an analysis of how district administrators differentiate support
for improvement to schools, for example, we focused on medium- to large-sized districts
serving multiple schools at all levels, rather than small districts with only an elementary,
middle, and high school. For our analysis of the relationship between district
improvement efforts and state influences (see also section 3.3), we focused mainly on the
238
We also investigated the relationship between district focus on instruction and principals‘ selfassessments of their expertise in providing instructional support to teachers. We argue, however, that a
stronger test of the importance of the district‘s role is to look for the reflection of improved principal
leadership on the part of those who experience it.
200
small- to medium-sized districts, given that more than 90% of school districts in the
United States serve less than 25,000 students, and given our impression that much
research on the district role in educational reform is concentrated on the experiences of
large, urban districts.
In order to understand the effects of administrator turnover at the district level, we
concentrated on districts where there were changes in the superintendency during the
course of our study. The sample of district office personnel interviewed in each district
varied according to district size and organizational structure. We interviewed senior
administrators and staff, including the superintendent, assistant superintendents or
directors for curriculum, assessment, and staff development; and line superintendents
responsible for supervision and support of designated schools. In small districts, we also
interviewed school principals who often took on system-level roles or functioned as the
superintendent‘s leadership team for consultation and decisions on district-wide matters.
In larger districts, we interviewed principals only in the site-visit schools.
This analysis is based on overall district approaches to improving and sustaining
the quality of teaching and learning, with particular attention to how district leaders
conceptualize and address variability in school performance and progress in
implementing local improvement efforts.
Survey Analysis
Principals’ assessments of district instructional focus. Six questions in the second
principal survey tapped principals‘ assessments of the priority given by their district
administrators to teaching and learning. As can be seen in Tables 2.5.1-2.5.5, principals
generally believed that their districts were clearly focusing on this area. However, the
responses also suggest some differences. For example, principals give the highest ratings
to the district‘s ability to clearly communicate standards for instructional improvement.
Clearly communicate expected standards for high-priority areas of instruction had a
mean of 4.9 on a six point scale. Also highly rated is Have a detailed plan for improving
instruction across the district (mean of 4.8).
Principals are slightly less generous in their general assessment of the degree to
which their districts Are active and effective in supporting excellent instruction (mean of
4.67). When they rate specific actions, however, they are even more discriminating: the
district‘s ability to Clarify the steps needed to improve the quality of instruction has a
mean of 4.5, while the question of how frequently they Communicate about best practice
in high-priority areas of instruction has a mean of 3.6, which falls between categories of
occasionally and often on a five-point scale.
An ANOVA indicates that responses to the six questions did not differ
significantly by school level (elementary, middle, high school), school size, or
characteristics of the student population (percent non-white and percent eligible for free
and reduced-price lunch). In addition, there was no significant variation in the responses
of principals and assistant principals.
In sum, while principals believe that districts prioritize improved instruction,
variations appear in responses to particular questions about whether principals receive
201
clear guidelines and support for making changes at the school level. This variation
suggests that in some districts there may be a gap between the ―vision‖ and strategic plan
for improved instruction, on the one hand, and, on the other, the way in which specific
support for improved instruction is delivered at the school level. As we saw in the case of
professional development for principals, the gap between a set of high standards and
tangible support for those standards may be critical in determining how well principals
can respond within their school settings.
M = 4.99
SD = 1.07
N = 210
D.24. District leaders clearly communicate
expected standards for high priority areas of
instruction.
M = 3.59
SD = .90
N=208
D. 14. How frequently do your district leaders
communicate effectively about best practice in
high priority areas of instruction?
M = 4.1
SD = 1.41
N = 211
D.34.District leaders actively monitor the quality
of instruction in this school.
M = 4.8
SD = 1.15
N = 209
D21. District leaders have a detailed plan for
improving instruction across the district.
202
M = 4.67
SD = 1.24
N = 210
D26. District leaders are active and effective
in supporting excellent instruction.
M = 4.51
SD = 1.16
N = 210
D.22. District leaders clarify the steps that
school administrators and teachers need to
take to improve the quality of instruction.
Figure 10: Principal Perceptions of District Actions Related to Improved Teaching
and Learning
District focus on instruction and principals’ instructional leadership. We assume
that improving building-level leadership is one of the most promising approaches districts
can take to fostering change. Current research suggests not only that districts must have a
coherent leadership development program (as we have suggested in our investigation of
professional development in Section 2.2); they must also consistently emphasize the
improvement of instruction as a primary goal.
We conducted a regression of the Principal Instructional Leadership measure on
the principals‘ responses to items in the District Focus on Instruction scale, including
building characteristics (size and level), student characteristics (% minority and % FRP)
as control variables in the model. The results, presented in Table 2.6.1., show a
significant prediction of principal instructional leadership behaviors, with the predictors
explaining 36% of the variance in principal instructional leadership. While the
characteristics of the school and its student population, taken together, have a strong
association with principals‘ instructional leadership, the measure of District focus on
instruction has a significant regression coefficient.
This finding is quite remarkable: It suggests that district policies and practices
focused on instruction are sufficiently powerful that they can be felt by teachers as an
animating force behind strong, focused leadership by principals. While we do not, in this
section, look for a relationship between district practices and student learning, we have
203
already established that instructional leadership by principals has an impact on teachers‘
classroom practices, which, in turn, affect student learning. This is perhaps our most
powerful finding regarding the indirect connection between the choices and priorities set
by districts and the classroom experience of students.
204
Table 2.6.1
Regression of Principal Instructional Leadership (Teacher Assessment of School
Administrators) on District Focus on Instruction and Building Characteristics a
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Model
(Constant)
.265
.180
District Focus on Instruction
.127
.057
-.160
Total Number of Students
Beta
t
Sig.
1.471
.143
.131
2.232
.027
.080
-.159
-2.000
.047
.000
.000
-.361
-4.102
.000
Percent of nonwhite students
.794
.266
.287
2.984
.003
Percent of free or reduced-price
lunch students
.246
.330
.073
.747
.456
Building Level
a.
b.
c.
Dependent Variable: Principal Instructional Leadership 4.13-22
F = 21.583, sig..000
R2 = .356
Cross-Case Analysis
Our results are organized around the dimensions most frequently mentioned by
Superintendents as bases for providing strategic direction and support for improved
teaching and learning in schools, including the following:

student performance on standards and indicators;

school progress in implementing district expectations (curriculum, instruction);

principals‘ leadership expertise for school improvement;

school-based factors that explain differences in student performance and program
implementation (e.g., instructional expertise, curriculum implementation, learning
gaps, staffing, leadership, material resources);

school/student characteristics (size, staff, SES, ELL, mobility, facilities).
Student performance on standards and indicators. Not surprisingly, district
administrators are highly sensitized to how well their schools are performing against state
proficiency standards and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. In the higherperforming districts, district staff corroborate the survey data that suggest the importance
of developing local instructional foci and learning standards. Interviews suggest that
higher-performing districts uniformly describe the district targets as aligned with—but
exceeding—those of the state. Sometimes, as in two of our large urban and suburban
205
districts, this was articulated in terms of broad goals, such as college readiness for all.
More commonly, respondents claimed that district expectations for student learning were
more rigorous than (yet compatible with) those mandated by the state. This was
particularly so in settings where district leaders mobilized the development of districtlevel curriculum content and performance expectations across all areas of curriculum (not
only in externally-tested subjects). In the two districts referred to above, for example,
district personnel also told stories of multi-year, district-wide curriculum development
projects resulting in production of curriculum frameworks and materials that satisfied
both state and local goals for student learning.
We encountered similar findings in some small rural districts, notwithstanding the
fact that they had fewer professional staff at the district level. One rural Nebraska district
led by little more than a superintendent and a curriculum director volunteered to
participate in the pilot phase of the state‘s decentralized curriculum and accountability
system. Classroom teachers, led by the local curriculum director, developed a district
curriculum consistent with state curriculum expectations. District and school personnel in
these settings talked enthusiastically about implementing their curriculum, and they
spoke positively about achievement results for their students as evidence of its quality. In
contrast, in other districts, local educators talked mainly about implementing the statemandated curriculum, and about implementing externally developed programs to satisfy
state-level expectations. The benchmark for success was performance on state-mandated
tests, and they communicated little sense of striving for more ambitious goals for student
learning.
In sum, where district administrators believe that their local standards are aligned
to and exceed external standards and accountability measures, and where results on state
tests are well above average, administrators tend to emphasize their own benchmarks as a
focus for school-improvement efforts. Districts in which students are performing less
well on state tests tend, on the other hand, to see themselves as driven by external
standards and assessments, and to view the district as less able to determine local
priorities and needs. In addition, district administrators in higher-performing districts are
more likely to be positive about state curriculum standards and the validity of
accountability indicators than those in districts that perform less well.
In higher-performing settings, district leaders are more likely to set continualimprovement goals for students and schools already meeting the minimum standards;
they are also more likely to specify targets for students and schools struggling to meet
standards. In several of the higher-performing districts in our sample (including large
urban/suburban as well as rural districts), for example, district leaders and school
personnel described recent and ongoing district-wide efforts to support teacher
implementation of differentiated instruction. In one rural Midwestern district the
superintendent championed a three-year teacher-development initiative focused on
differentiated instruction. Teams of teachers were sent each summer to external
professional development programs focused on this aim; these teams then were expected
to lead school-based in-service training activities throughout the following year.
Interestingly, in this case and in others where district-wide differentiated instruction
206
initiatives were underway, the explicit rationale provided by district personnel was to
help teachers ensure that the needs of ―high-ability learners‖ were not being ignored,
given the predominant state emphasis on interventions to close the achievement gap
between low- and high-achieving students. In these settings, local goals and related
initiatives are often framed in terms of satisfying local community expectations—an
argument that is most frequently heard in districts that serve large numbers of middleand high-income families, and where there are few or no schools performing below state
standards.239
In higher-performing districts, leaders did not expect improvement in lowperforming schools to occur merely by means of inputs required under federal and state
policies (e.g., school choice, tutoring, prescribed needs assessments and schoolimprovement planning, curriculum audits, advice from external consultants). They
adopted additional, district-level intervention strategies. In one high-performing
midwestern urban district, for example, two schools became a focus for district
intervention during the final year of our study because they failed to meet AYP targets
(the first two schools to be designated in that status). In addition to taking advantage of
additional funding from the state, and attending mandatory workshops offered by the
state for all schools identified as not meeting AYP, district leaders (curriculum
superintendent, curriculum directors, school improvement director) conducted their own
investigations of the problems in student performance and followed up with district
support tailored to each school‘s needs. In the middle school, for example, they
determined that the principal needed help with his instructional leadership skills; that
teachers were not setting and communicating clear expectations for student learning; and
that Title 1 students were not getting adequate, specialized academic support. Throughout
the year the superintendent and directors met and coached the principal on regular
monthly and weekly schedules; district curriculum personnel worked with teachers on
their instructional needs; and the district supported efforts to improve after-school
programs for low-performing students.
In contrast, a middle school in a small, high- poverty district in one of our
southern states also failed to meet AYP targets (the district had a history of adequate,
albeit not high performance, across its schools on state proficiency tests). In compliance
with state requirements, an external school improvement consultant was brought in. The
school staff had little positive to say about that consultant‘s input, and district leaders did
not report any district initiatives to deal with the situation other than supporting and
relying on the principal and teachers to find a solution. We heard similar criticisms about
the effectiveness of state support-system interventions for low-performing schools in one
of our large, high-poverty, low- performing urban school districts—where (again) the
district developed no plan for systematic intervention to ameliorate the problem.
239
The phenomenon of schools targeted as ―in need of improvement‖ because of failure to achieve state
achievement targets under NCLB/ AYP regulations began to surface in our district-level findings during
the final year of data collection (2006-2007). The number of schools failing to meet AYP targets was nil or
small in many of these districts (e.g., 2 of 60 schools in one large district), although in one state an entire
district was designated as ―in need of improvement.‖
207
In higher-performing settings, district leaders often proactively monitored trends
in schools‘ academic performance and in their community contexts (e.g., demographic
trends). Leaders did this in order to identify schools potentially at risk of not meeting
AYP targets in future years; then they could target those schools and students for
intervention. In one large, high-performing suburban district (i.e., 90% or more of
students in most schools achieving at or above state proficiency standards), district
leaders noticed demographic changes occurring in several elementary schools. The
neighborhoods served by the schools were experiencing an influx of low-income families
from the adjacent city. District leaders became concerned that school achievement results
might decline unless something was done to support teachers and principals in efforts to
respond effectively to the needs of students from low-income families. District leaders
developed a set of indicators to track demographic changes and performance, and they
used these indicators to designate certain schools as at-risk of declining performance,
thus qualifying for additional district support (e.g., staffing, program, funding). They did
so in such a way, however, that the district could sustain the initiative on its regular
budget (rather than seeking and depending on additional funding from the state or
foundations, for example). This example, and the prior illustration of one district‘s
intensive efforts to turn around a school failing to meet AYP targets, point to a critical
issue for school district leaders. In their responses, they talked about the challenges—
financial and in human-resource needs—they faced in providing effective support for
increasing numbers of schools requiring special interventions, as stipulated by
government policies.
Educators from all districts talked about the need for (and utilization of)
diagnostic and formative assessments of student progress throughout the school year, in
addition to state achievement-test data. Leaders in higher-performing districts guided
colleagues in the development of local assessment instruments. These instruments were
aligned with state and local curriculum standards; teachers were expected to administer
them at designated intervals and to use the results for instructional planning (see section
2.4 for examples). In some settings school personnel relied mainly on assessment tools
developed or endorsed by their state education agencies, perhaps supplemented by
formative assessments developed by classroom teachers in their own schools.
School progress implementing district expectations. School districts varied in the
range and specificity of district-mandated expectations for professional practice—in
particular, for curriculum and instruction. We are hesitant to claim that district leaders in
higher-performing districts uniquely promoted more standardized, district-wide
curriculum content and materials, because the trend everywhere is to increase
standardization. Compared to others, however, district leaders in higher-performing
districts appear to have invested in district-wide curriculum development over a longer
period of time, using well-institutionalized district curriculum systems. As that
development unfolded, efforts to align and coordinate other strands of district support
(teacher development, school leadership development, school-improvement planning,
performance monitoring) evolved. (This evolution in district support systems was more
likely where continuity in district leadership, both administrators and professional staff,
was evident.) Progressive alignment, refinement, and synergy among these dimensions of
208
district support may account more for higher performance than curriculum
standardization per se.
In addition to curriculum standardization, leaders in higher-performing districts
were more likely than others to promote and support implementation of particular
instructional strategies regarded as effective. Expectations for uniformity in instructional
practices can focus on general or subject-specific teaching methods defined by district
staff as ―best practices‖ (e.g., cooperative learning, guided reading, technology use,
methods of differentiating instruction) and/or on implementation of specific district, state,
or commercial programs that prescribe teaching and learning activities and materials. In
one of our high-performing districts, for example, all new elementary school teachers are
required to participate in district-developed year-long courses on effective strategies for
teaching beginning and more advanced readers. In another high-performing suburban
district, sample lesson plans replete with suggested teaching strategies, learning activities,
and curriculum resources are built into the district‘s online curriculum guide for teachers.
Although teachers are not formally required to implement these lessons, they do have to
adhere to a lesson-design format that requires them to target district curriculum
objectives, to integrate computer-based learning activities into every lesson, and to
engage students in small group and independent learning activities. Teachers reported
that the district guide for curriculum and instruction exerts a strong influence on what
they do.
In addition to providing or recommending teaching methods, leaders in higherperforming districts provided direction and support for the use of common methods of
assessing and reporting student learning, aligned to curriculum expectations. Rather than
complaining about loss of autonomy, many teachers we interviewed appeared to
appreciate the greater clarity of expectations and access to instructional tools (e.g., course
scope/sequence, lesson plans, materials, assessments) that often accompany district-wide
curriculum development and support for implementation. Their receptivity to standard
forms of instructional practice, however, was conditional upon the quality of district
support for implementation (staff development, materials, supervision), perceived fit with
state/district curriculum requirements, evidence of student impact, and opportunities for
teacher discretion within the boundaries established by the district.
Leaders in higher-performing settings not only worked to establish and
communicate clear expectations for curriculum and instruction; they developed and
applied mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of district expectations through
supervision systems and school-improvement plans. In the most fully elaborated support
systems, district leaders initially ensured common training and resources across relevant
sectors of the district; then they used monitoring systems to gather information about
compliance and progress in school-level implementation. They also provided
differentiated follow-up assistance—in some cases, to help school personnel master and
comply with district expectations; in other cases, where compliance was no longer an
issue, to help school personnel use the program in question more effectively and obtain
better results.
209
All districts used internal and external expertise to help teachers implement
district expectations for curriculum and instruction. For obvious reasons, larger districts
made greater use of district curriculum and instruction staff than small districts did.
Smaller districts relied more on state-supported regional education centers and local
universities for in-service training and assistance, and for brokering contacts with other
external consultants. Having district-level expectations for curriculum and instruction
makes it easier for district leaders to monitor and respond to school-level implementation.
In fact, as we will show in Section 3.3, principals in many districts pay more attention to
meeting local standards than to state meeting standards, in part because of the systems we
have described above.
Reliance on outside assistance for implementation can be challenging because of
the costs, the potential problems of fit with local expectations for practice, and the
absence of local expertise to provide timely follow-up assistance in response to schoolspecific needs. Having a central office curriculum and instruction unit does not, however,
guarantee the coherence and effectiveness of district support for implementation of
district-wide programs. Our evidence indicates that, compared to others, teachers in
smaller districts did not feel less supported (Section 1.6). In fact the opposite is true:
teachers from smaller districts rated district support higher than teachers from mediumor larger-sized districts. This suggests that size and district resources cannot account for
the value-added effect of support for improved instruction. It is possible that larger
districts pay less attention to the quality and utility of support for teachers because they
assume that they have greater quality control over employees, while smaller districts are
more attentive to the quality and utility of their ―purchases.‖
We also observe that higher-performing districts make greater efforts than others
to maximize communication and coordination among different central office units in their
interaction with teachers and principals. In other words, district office units acted more
interdependently than independently in relation to district-wide and school-specific
needs. The interdependent action occurred partly through interdepartmental structures.
These structures make it possible for district staff members to let one another know who
is doing what at district and school levels. District unit interdependence may also involve
a team approach to assessing and responding to school-specific needs for help with
implementation, depending on the problem.
In addition, some district leaders actively facilitated networked communication,
sharing, and joint problem solving among schools. This occurred through districtorganized opportunities for principals to speak to one another in principals‘ meetings,
leadership programs, or peer-coaching arrangements. Larger districts sometimes create
systems of teacher leaders linked through district curriculum and instruction specialists.
Networking between schools helps district leaders to identify differences in school needs
and to enable school personnel to find solutions among themselves, rather than relying
solely on the district for help.
Principals’ expertise in guiding school improvement. While most central office
administrators spoke about unevenness in the leadership strengths of their principals,
210
leaders in higher-performing districts expressed greater confidence in their ability to
improve the quality of school leadership through hiring practices, leadershipdevelopment programs, school placement, and supervision (see also Section 2.2 of this
report on district contributions to principals‘ efficacy).
In a minority of the districts we studied, principal effectiveness was still attributed
to innate rather than learned capacities, and low school performance was viewed as a
consequence of external factors (state policies, school community characteristics) rather
than district and principal leadership. District leaders faced with struggling schools were
less rather than more likely to sponsor leadership-development initiatives or to provide
strategic help to principals; they focused instead on recruiting a different sort of
administrator. In one of the large, low-performing urban districts in our sample, district
administrators expressed the belief that principals were essentially born, not made. They
talked more about the need to replace principals in low-performing schools than about
prospects for developing their leadership skills. Not surprisingly, in this setting, district
leaders did not describe any local professional-development programs for principals.
In higher-performing districts, central office leaders not only believed in their
capacity to develop principals; they set expectations for implementation of specific sets
of leadership practices. This required focusing on specific areas of leadership practice
separately (e.g., methods of clinical supervision, school-improvement planning,
classroom walk-throughs, uses of student performance data), or within comprehensive
guidelines or frameworks for leadership practice.240 In one of the higher-performing
urban districts in our sample, district officials organized a three-year principaldevelopment program based on Marzano‘s balanced leadership program. They
supplemented this with additional training in clinical supervision. They designed districtwide in-service programs for principals, focused specifically on new curriculum
initiatives (e.g., revision of the elementary mathematics program) or school-improvement
initiatives (e.g., developing a professional learning communities effort, extending to all
schools). In addition, the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction
dedicated portions of each monthly meeting with elementary and secondary school
principals to collective leadership-development activities.
District leaders in higher-performing settings invested in the development of
common professional learning experiences for principals, focused on district expectations
for instructional leadership and administration. They did not rely chiefly on principals‘
participation in state certification programs or on support for individual principals‘
professional interests (addressed, e.g., in external workshops, conferences, and university
programs; see also section 2.2 of this report).
Leaders in higher-performing districts communicate explicit expectations for
principal leadership; they provide learning experiences in line with these expectations;
they monitor principal follow-through and intervene with further support as needed. This
kind of supervision is not limited to formal procedures for appraisal by principals. The
240
E.g., Marzano et al. (2005) on balanced leadership; Dufour et al. (2005) on professional learning
communities; and Fullan (2001a) on leading in a culture of change.
211
more likely scenario is that gaps in principals‘ leadership expertise are identified through
ongoing monitoring and discussion about school performance and improvement plans.
Where gaps in leadership skills are identified, district leaders are more likely to intervene
personally—advising and coaching the principal—than to call on outside expertise. This
pattern of interaction stems not only from the clear expectations for practice that are
characteristic of high-performing districts, but also from district leaders‘ confidence in
their capacity to help principals master those practices.
School factors related to differences in performance. In higher-performing
settings, district leaders understood that the reasons for differences in student
performance, or in implementation of district initiatives, were particular to the setting.
Similar problems (e.g., declining test scores, weak follow-through with a district
professional learning communities initiative) might result from different contributing
conditions in different schools. Therefore, standard solutions were considered unlikely to
apply in all situations.
Leaders in these districts engaged school staff members in collaborative inquiry
about the unique circumstances affecting student learning or teacher performance in their
schools. They then tailored district support for improvement to the analysis of schoolspecific needs, rather than relying primarily on centrally determined interventions based
on categorical differences among schools and their students (e.g., size, SES, ELL,
facilities) or set performance cut-off levels. They invested in external and locally created
data bases to inform inquiry and decision-making related to differences in student
outcomes and degrees of program implementation (see section 2.4 for specific examples
related to district support for data use in schools).
Challenges and Trends
Our efforts to attain greater precision in understanding ―the district difference‖
were alternately frustrating and fascinating. Our quantitative data point to a strong district
effect, noted particularly in the relationship between district policies and practices, and
teachers‘ reports of principals‘ instructional leadership. Frustration arose, however, from
the multivariate and often indirect nature of what district personnel do to influence school
improvement, and the difficulty of isolating the effects of any one variable on the actions
and outcomes of the work of principals and teachers. Our overall conclusion is that there
is no simple list of ―to do‖ actions that will allow district leaders to create the conditions
that promote improved instruction and student learning. Instead, district leaders‘ actions
in relation to key policy conditions are highly interdependent and require ―steady work‖
on multiple fronts. Most district policies and practices that can be linked to real
improvements for teaching and learning evolve over relatively long periods of time; this
finding points to the critical importance of patience and sustained, continual efforts aimed
at improvement. That focus is present in the more successful districts (even where there
have been leadership changes); it was distinctly lacking in districts with district
leadership turnover or inconsistent policy development.
Our evidence for district-wide approaches to improving and sustaining the quality
of teaching and learning pointed to some key challenges and trends faced overall and, in
212
particular, by higher-performing districts in our sample. Leaders in these settings were
explicit about their commitment to ambitious learning goals for all students, not just for
those not performing at acceptable proficiency levels. They spoke about the difficulty
they face, however, in specifying and generating consensus for clear goals and plans for
improvement in the learning of average and high-performing students and schools. It may
be easier to focus improvement efforts on obvious problems than on successes, even
when there are no guaranteed solutions to the obvious problems.
In higher-performing settings, district leaders are likely to be vigilant and strategic
about sustaining good performance where it is happening. They engage in monitoring
activities to enable early identification of student and school results and factors (e.g.,
demographic changes) that might jeopardize continuing high performance, and they take
action. State accountability systems focus attention and resources on low performance
and remediation, but in many school districts across the country district leaders are as
much concerned, if not more, about sustaining good performance and about establishing
agendas for student learning beyond proficiency scores on standardized tests. These
concerns are rising as educators and policy makers continue to raise the AYP bar.
Increasing standardization of curriculum, instruction, and assessment appears to
be a universal trend in the United States—at the district and state levels. Yet
standardization does not yield the same performance results everywhere. Our evidence
from higher-performing districts offers some insight into how standardization can
contribute to high performance. In essence, standardization of expectations for
curriculum and instruction (and even leadership practice) creates a platform for
improving the quality of leadership, instruction, and learning. Using this platform, district
leaders can develop support systems that promote quality implementation of the common
expectations. The creation of such support systems takes time and skill, and it requires
organizational learning to figure out what works well. Unfortunately not all districts
benefit from the leadership continuity, skill, and resources needed to develop equally
effective support systems in a context of standardized expectations.
From district leaders in our higher-performing settings, we have learned that once
standard expectations for curriculum, instruction, and leadership are implemented and
sustained with a reasonable degree of fidelity and quality, further improvement in the
quality of teaching and learning is unlikely to be gained by doing more of the same. To
reach the students not currently well served requires differentiated (not common)
solutions grounded in local analysis of learning needs and circumstances of struggling
students. In effect, in these districts, three levels of support for school improvement can
be observed, in addition to bureaucratically prescribed inputs. Level One encompasses
common inputs to all schools to develop the basic knowledge, skills, and resources
necessary to understand and work towards district expectations. Level Two supports
efforts to provide additional input and assistance to schools and school personnel that are
at risk or struggling to meet expectations for professional practice and student
achievement. Level Three supports are the most complex. At this level, district and
school personnel may undertake collaborative inquiry into important problems, and
engage in a search for solutions that go beyond current knowledge and expectations.
213
Implications for Policy and Practice
Six implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. District leaders need to establish clear expectations across multiple dimensions of
improvement activity as the bases for increasing coherence, coordination, and
synergy in the effectiveness of district improvement efforts over time.
2. District leaders should combine a common core of support for efforts to implement
district expectations with differentiated support aligned to the needs of individual
schools.
3. District leaders are encouraged to embrace and discuss ways in which effective
school-leadership practices can be acquired through intentional leadershipdevelopment efforts that include both formal professional development activities and
collegial work.
4. One of the most productive ways for districts to facilitate continual improvement is to
develop teachers‘ capacity to use formative assessments of student progress aligned
with district expectations for student learning, and to use formative data in devising
and implementing interventions during the school year.
5. Districts should strive for continuity in district leadership. Such continuity is integral
to the development and implementation of a coherent and effective support system for
improving and sustaining the quality of student and school performance.
6. District leaders need to take steps to monitor and sustain high-level student
performance wherever it is found, and to set ambitious goals for student learning that
go beyond proficiency levels on standardized tests. Focusing improvement efforts
solely on low-performing schools and students is not a productive strategy for
continual improvement in a district.
214
2.7
A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice
about District Leadership
Implications for District Policy Making
1. Develop district policies and clear expectations that support community and parental
engagement. While policies have an impact, our findings also suggest that the impact
will be limited if policies are promulgated without regard for incentives principals
may need to increase the influence of parents and community members within
schools. Incorporating indicators of parental and community involvement into
principal assessment practices may be warranted.
2. Develop a professional development policy and strategy for principals and district
administrators. Support for principals is perceived as high in the districts we studied,
but opportunities for significant professional development tend to be informal and
unsystematic. While we know that adults learn best through experience, districts must
provide a framework for individual and collective growth if they are to realize the full
potential of their principals.
3. Focus policies and strategies on district priorities that are connected to student
learning. These priorities include instructional and curriculum leadership, uses of
data, and teamwork and shared leadership focused on improvement objectives.
Although these leadership practices are connected to student learning, until very
recently they were weakly covered in most principal licensure programs causing
many practicing principals to have limited knowledge in these areas.
4. Individualize policies that provide support for schools. Recognize the importance of
different school contexts, whether they are a result of demographic characteristics,
administrator experience, school size, or school level. One-size-fits all policies will
not lead to building confidence, and will be less likely to encourage schools to be
reflective about their own capacities for redesigning their organizations to meet very
local needs.
5. Redesign human resource policies related to school leadership. While districts cannot
control all aspects of the performance of school-based leaders, serious consideration
should be given to recruitment practices, discouraging turnover, planning for effective
leadership transition when turnover occurs, and redesigning principal evaluation
procedures to focus on aspects of leadership that are most critical for student learning.
6. Develop clearer policies governing data use, including priorities. These should
include expectations for additional data collection at the district and school levels to
ensure that relevant data are available to principals and teachers in a timely fashion.
215
Implications for District Practice
1. Be crystal clear and repetitive when communicating the district's agenda for student
learning. Effective superintendents are visible and articulate, but they also work with
others in the district office so that the message is conveyed by all.
2. Provide increased opportunities for administrators to collaborate on common work.
Without collaboration, principals‘ collective sense of efficacy is unlikely to increase.
In addition, as with teachers, collaboration is associated with increased job
satisfaction and motivation.
3. Provide a wide range of intensive opportunities for teachers and school-level leaders
to develop the capacities they need to accomplish the district’s student-learning
agenda. These opportunities will often take place in schools and be aimed at meeting
pressing challenges unique to individual schools.
4. Support principals, particularly those new to the district or school, in providing
aligned forms of leadership distribution that build on existing strengths. Use
distributed leadership support to help create a stronger sense of stability in the
improvement agenda for the school and district.
5. Provide assistance for teachers and school-level leaders in accessing, interpreting,
and making use of evidence for their decisions about teaching and learning. Minimal
support for evidence-based decision making in schools will not do much to influence
student learning, but will take time. Increased support will be especially important for
secondary school staffs, where state testing data is typically more limited, and data
must be examined at the department, as well as the school and grade levels.
6. Spend time in schools. Most principals report that the administrators who evaluate
them rarely visit their schools (other district staff members, such as content
specialists, may be more visible). Use school visits as well as district meetings to help
build principals‘ sense of efficacy or confidence in their abilities to accomplish the
priorities for student learning agreed on in the district.
7. Differentiate the support provided to schools in light of schools’ individual priorities,
strengths, weaknesses, and circumstances. One-size-fits-all district interventions are
typically of much less value to schools than many districts believe.
8. Gather data about how well district policies are working at the school level. Work
continually to increase synergy among district policies, procedures, and practices
aimed at guiding and supporting the district‘s agenda for student learning.
9. Ensure coordination and coherence in support for schools across different
organizational units at the district level. Schools benefit from coordinated support
provided in relation to district goals and based on shared understandings of schoolimprovement plans and needs
216
10. Prioritize assistance and support to secondary schools. Secondary school
administrators need significantly more support in all areas of practice that we have
discussed in this and previous sections.
217
Part Three
State Leadership and Relationships with Districts
Preface
An investigation of leadership for school improvement and student achievement
would be incomplete if it did not attend to the role of the states. Over the past three
decades, the states have played an increasingly active role in promulgating policies to
promote change in the education systems for which they have constitutional
responsibility. In addition, policy makers and educators have viewed policy initiatives in
light of their obligation to foster economic growth and social goals. But in matters of K12 education, the United States has a long tradition of local autonomy, and muscular new
efforts to launch systemic reform have not always been received with enthusiasm by
schools and districts. Leadership at the state level entails dealing with policies and
practices that may seem far removed from people whose interest in schools is immediate
and concrete—individual students and parents, for example. State-level leaders are
charged with formulating policies that will frame practice in districts and schools more
broadly, according to the public interest, and to provide incentives and sanctions for local
implementation of those policies. Tensions have been inevitable in these efforts, which
have left no state untouched.
How might these efforts be characterized? Scholarship about the relationship
between policy leadership and complex social change presents three main images.241 A
technical policy perspective is found in most policy analysis texts; it is generally
associated with rational choice models.242 Policy leaders should, according to this
perspective, focus on rational choices to be made once a policy issue is on the agenda.
Another image emphasizes a political perspective, focusing on a naturalistic explanation
of how policies are made. The indeterminate nature of leadership in the course of policy
making, and the slippage that occurs as policy refinements accrue during implementation,
help to explain how policies succeed or fail.243 Particular instruments used to reformulate
policy are less important, according to this perspective, than understanding how a
particular policy issue got the governor‘s or the legislative committee‘s attention in the
first place.244 A third image, the practitioner perspective, emerges from studies of publicsector administrators; it examines the tendency of administrators to seek flexibility and
autonomy in interpreting policies, and ways in which this tendency affects the broader
process of change. Professionals who will be affected by proposed changes often see new
policies and regulations as distractions from or add-ons to their ―real work,‖ and therefore
interpret those policies to fit their needs.245 Rather than being passive recipients of policy,
they are actors in the process of making policy. Professionals in schools, for example,
have opportunities to pick and choose among the inducements and constraints that are
241
Louis (2007a).
Ostrom (1999).
243
Kingdon (2003).
244
Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith (1993).
245
Weatherly & Lipsky (1977).
242
218
offered by policies to further their own interests246 as they orchestrate the local policy
process.247
Each of these perspectives has validity—that is, each describes and explains
certain aspects of policy work. But the perspectives are seldom integrated in studies of
policy leadership. This observation has influenced us in our formulation of the following
key questions about leading and managing educational change:
1. How do issues get defined and taken seriously as policy options at the state level?
2. How do clusters of policies—systemic efforts at shaping educational reform—get
embedded in state agencies and transmitted to create a local impact?
3. How does local autonomy on the part of district and school leaders shift the process
of systems change?
In Part Three we examine variations among state legislative and gubernatorial
leaders (Section 3.1), and state education agencies (Section 3.2), in how policy leadership
is undertaken, and we examine consequences of the variations. We also describe, in the
context of policy work, differences in the relationships found among schools, districts,
and states (Section 3.3)—differences that range significantly in their apparent value for
fostering improvement in teaching and learning.
Adopting a political science framework focused on policy cultures and policy
levers in, we show in Section 3.1 how different policy cultures can be, from state to state,
and how stable they can be over time. We also identify wide variations across a sample of
states in the policy instruments they choose to employ. We conclude, in part, that few
states develop comprehensive approaches to education reform, and that the quite general
direction states provide to state education agencies (SEAs) and districts offers limited
guidance for specific approaches to improving teaching and learning.
State-level leadership is not confined to legislative action. SEAs play an important
role in interpreting policy and providing support and guidance to districts and schools.
The evidence we present in Section 3.2 shows that SEAs serve as the primary agencies
for translating state mandates into action. In their work, SEAs now are increasingly
occupied with creating partnerships to deliver technical assistance to districts, especially
districts with profiles of weak student achievement.
In Section 3.3 we provide accounts of how districts interact with state and federal
policies. These policies, our evidence suggests, have modest but important effects on
local districts‘ efforts at planning for improvement. Typically, district and school leaders
agree with the general intentions expressed in state and federal policy, but they exercise
considerable discretion in implementing policies, taking care to honor local priorities in
the process. We provide a synthesis of implications for policy and practice in Section 3.4.
246
247
Honig & Hatch (2004).
Wallace (2003).
219
3.1
State Political Cultures and Policy Leadership
Key Findings

All states are exercising policy leadership intended to improve teaching and
learning.

State policy leadership for improved teaching and learning often predates, by a
decade or more, the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

Across the states, there is strong demand for increased leadership activity at the
state level. The common pattern of demand, however, does not translate into
similar policies among the states.

Policy instruments used to improve teaching and learning vary from state to state.

Because few states have adopted comprehensive approaches to reform, state
policy provides agencies and school districts with general directions for
improving teaching and learning, but guidance for more specific means of
achieving the goals in question is limited.
Introduction
We focus here on our first question: How do issues get defined and taken
seriously as policy options at the state level?
Prior research on the states‘ role in education can be sorted, roughly, into two
categories. In one category, researchers look at the degree to which state policies are
coherent and clearly focused on the objective of improving teaching and learning. In the
other, researchers emphasize the limitations of state leadership, looking at ways in which
state policies are filtered through different processes arising from external events and
constituent preferences. We take a slightly different approach, investigating (a) how state
education policies are made, (b) whether the process of policymaking is related to the
policies that are emphasized, and (c) how policies are used by, and affect, educators at the
local level. In taking this approach, we have sought to combine two of the images
described in the Preface to this Section. First, we have looked for evidence of rational
choices made by state leaders, particularly governors and legislators, in response to
changing public demands and new data, increasingly available to policy makers, about
student achievement and school performance. Second, we have used a ―naturalistic lens,‖
looking at the way in which various actors influence the choices that are made.
220
Over the last 25 years, there has been a distinct shift in the locus of education
policymaking from the local to state level. While there are differences in how states have
exercised control over local decisions,248 this shift is observable everywhere.249 In
particular, during the last decade or so, all states have become participants in the
accountability movement that has led to state curricular standards and assessment
programs, with requirements that local districts report their student-learning results. Some
states, like Texas and North Carolina, have been particularly active in developing
coherent systems of standards, tests, and positive or negative sanctions, while others, like
Iowa and Nebraska, have preferred to emphasize voluntary collaboration. The new state
activism and the NCLB have captured the attention of local leaders, who must now adjust
their priorities to the priorities of policy makers in state capitols and elsewhere outside
the local area. While some regard the NCLB Act as exemplifying a further, major shift in
governance from the states to the federal government, the states to date have retained
authority to determine implementation measures for fundamental elements of the Act.
The resulting patchwork of responses has reinforced some important educational
differences among states.250
We know today that states must demonstrate compliance with NCLB, but we
know much less about particular ways in which states cope with their responsibility
(some would say opportunity) to comply. We know even less about the states‘
approaches to the analysis and use of test scores and other sources of data at the school
level. Thus, while many observers have pointed to the increased potency of the state as a
political actor in educational policy,251 the role of states in interpreting national
legislation has been treated less extensively. Most reports on differences among the states
are descriptive, although some analysts suggest that rigorous state accountability systems
can raise student achievement.252 How they might do this has not, however, been
explored in detail. We lack detailed, comprehensive information about the ways in which
states are interpreting federal legislation and exercising leadership in adapting legislation
to specific circumstances and needs arising in their schools.
The following specific questions drove this part of our study:

Are there differences among states in the way in which legislative policy has evolved
to address the broad goal of improving teaching and learning?

If differences exist, what implications do they have for the role of local school leaders
and other stakeholders who have legitimate interests in shaping policies and practices
that might foster improvement in teaching and learning?
248
Timar (1997); Tyack & James (1986).
Clune & White (1992); Reeves (1990); Timar & Kirp (1988).
250
Stecher et al. (2008).
251
Clune (1987); Reeves (1990); Timar & Kirp (1988).
252
Carnoy & Loeb (2002).
249
221
Previous Research
To explore the role of state leadership, we draw on literature that examines state
policy making. This includes studies of the states‘ role in promoting quality education,
studies of state policy cultures, and studies of policy instruments available to states. We
draw on two sets of research: one examines the role of political culture in determining the
process and characteristics of state policy leadership; the other examines the policy
instruments that are used to motivate change.
State Political Culture
As states work to develop policies to improve education, political culture plays a
role in determining how they balance conflicting expectations and opportunities. Statespecific studies show that political culture and accumulated history help to predict the
dynamics and outcomes of legislation.253 A state‘s political decisions are visibly affected
by power, but decision outcomes, particularly in the case of complex policies, are only
modestly predicted by the preferences of those with the deepest pockets and legislative
majorities. Rather, culture affects outcomes by creating a context in which decisions are
made.254
State political culture is more than the aggregation of individual preferences and
values. It is reflected in social awareness, observable in repeated patterns of behavior
during the policy-making process.255 We can ―see‖ culture in the history of public
discourse, repeated actions, and expressed preferences of groups—all of which form a
context in which legislators and others act.256 Usually defined as the enduring political
attitudes and behaviors associated with groups that live in a defined geographical
context,257 political culture persists over time, influencing states as they address issues
old and new.
Elezar‘s early classification of the political cultures of U.S. states posited three
global ―types‖ that are still viewed as relevant in more recent studies: ―moral‖ (emphasis
on the importance of society and the role of the government in preserving the public
good), ―traditional‖ (emphasis on the importance of social and family ties with
government see as an important means of preserving the existing social order), and
―individualistic‖ (the role of government should be limited to areas that promote private
initiative). Building on Elezar‘s types, later analyses of policy development, informed
especially by Herzik (1985), reveal four dimensions of political culture that underlie the
three types:
1. Openness: broad political participation, as contrasted with constrained participation or
elite dominance.
253
Lee (1997); Mazzoni (1993); Sacken & Medina (1990).
Berezin (1997).
255
Chilton (1988).
256
Wirt et al. (1988).
257
Elazar (1970); Lieske (1993).
254
222
2. Decentralism: distributed power sources (no one center), as contrasted with
concentration of power in the legislature or governor‘s office.
3. Rationalism: policies based on comprehensive and/or coherent solutions to social
problems, as contrasted with multiple, unrelated initiatives or limited government
activity.
4. Egalitarianism: persistent policies to redistribute resources to minimize disparities, as
contrasted with limited efforts in redistribution.
Each dimension implies a corresponding pattern of political behavior. For
example, in open political cultures the general public influences the operation of
government entities and political processes; closed political cultures have more stringent
requirements for participation, yielding less public influence. States tending toward
rationalism enact comprehensive programs (for school reform, e.g.) to solve specific
problems, while states tending toward decentralism place more emphasis on local control
and choice.258 The long-term effects of culture may not be visible in every legislative
session, because no government is entirely consistent. However, they become apparent
over longer periods of time.
Education research underscores the significance of Herzik‘s dimensions, and
points to their relevance for understanding state education policy.259 Recent analyses also
point to emerging norms and values that may be important for understanding how and
why various issues dominate the education policy process.260 Accordingly, we add two
dimensions to Herzik‘s formulation:
5. Efficiency: an emphasis on cost-benefits analysis, the application of business models,
and optimization of policy performance, as contrasted with limited attention to
weighing benefits against cost.
6. Quality: an emphasis on an elaborated state role in providing oversight and
monitoring the quality of public services, as contrasted with a less systematic, laissezfaire approach to determining quality.
Policy Levers
An underlying problem—how policymakers can use blunt tools to achieve more
subtle ends—has been noted by researchers in political science261 as well as education.262
The levers politicians choose are critical because legislation must be acceptable to the
electorate at large (―No new taxes!‖), but it must also provide appropriate incentives or
tools to those who must implement them (―No unfunded mandates!‖). The premise that
there are multiple but limited ways to achieve the same end is critical to our way of
258
Timar & Kirp (1988).
Amrein & Berliner (2005); Febey & Louis (2009); Stecher et al. (2008); and Wong (1989).
260
Wirt et al. (1988); Wood & Theobald (2003).
261
Woodside (1986).
262
McDonnell & Elmore (1987); Woodside (1986).
259
223
thinking about political culture. States may differ from one another in the instruments
they use to achieve a goal that they all espouse, such as equity in education. One example
can be found in school finance. Variation in finance strategies persists as a result of
enduring patterns of legislative politics, structural limitations, economic constraints, and
legal contexts.263 Owing to political and economic pressures, policymakers typically use
a narrow range of levers that they believe are likely to produce positive short-term
results.264 States have struggled, therefore, with finding appropriate longer-term policy
mechanisms to influence teaching and learning—the main focal point of education
policy, but also the area most resistant to change from outside the school.
In our initial analysis, we made use of use four policy instruments described by
McDonnell and Elmore (1987, p. 137):
1. Mandates: enacting laws, regulations, and requirements, including sanctions.
2. System change: legislating restructuring; changing governance or legal/financial
relationships, including the provision of new alternatives.
3. Capacity building: using professional development, providing access to new
information or data, and developing leadership.
4. Inducements: providing financial aid (targeted or general), special grants programs,
and other investments in the human or physical infrastructure.
New Evidence
In investigating state legislative leadership, we focused on two questions:

Are there differences among states in the way in which legislative policy has evolved
to address the broad goal of improving teaching and learning?

If differences exist, what implications do they have for the role of local school leaders
and other stakeholders who have legitimate interests in shaping policies and practices
that might foster improvement in teaching and learning?
To carry out this analysis we talked to people who are active in formal or informal
policy leadership. We conducted interviews in the 10 states of our larger sample
(including Mississippi for our state-level data collection). At the legislative level, we
interviewed between eight and eleven people in each state, including the chairs of senate
and house education committees, a representative of the governor‘s office, and various
stakeholders, including business people and people representing professional
associations, unions, higher education, and at least one ―policy entrepreneur‖ who had a
long history of observing and participating in policy discussions at the state level.
263
264
Wong (1989).
Elmore & Fuhrman (1995).
224
We analyzed our interview data to develop a ―policy culture profile‖ for each
state. The profiles include the following elements:

A list of key actors who influence education policy making over multiple policies that
all respondents considered important.

The degree to which the state took an active role in setting directions for
improvement at the local level.

The process by which key actors influence the content of educational policy,
particularly policy relating to standards, accountability, and leadership for
improvement.
We verified each analysis by checking facts, using the World Wide Web; in
several cases, we also used an informant who, while not a policy actor, has studied state
education policy. A sample of three states is shown in Table 3.1.1. We selected this
sample from the larger set of ten cases because the three sample states illustrate diversity
in state political culture.
225
Table 3.1.1
State Political Cultures and Policy Instruments Directed at Increasing Student Achievement
Indiana
Oregon
Nebraska
Political Culture
1. Openness
2. Decentralism
3. Rationalism
Very open
Very open
Very open
Centralized
Balanced
Decentralized
Rationalized/
comprehensive for
leadership
development and
accountability
Rationalized/
comprehensive for
accountability; limited
in leadership
Some movement
toward rationalism for
accountability; limited
in leadership
4. Egalitarianism
Moderate emphasis;
focus on withinschool equality
Moderate emphasis;
focus on schoolfinance equalization
Limited emphasis on
egalitarianism
5. Efficiency
Moderate emphasis on
efficiency; thematic
and not embedded in
policy
Little emphasis on
efficiency
Moderate emphasis on
efficiency; thematic
and not embedded in
policy
6. Quality
High emphasis on
quality; many state
policies to promote
and assess quality
High emphasis on
quality; responsibility
shared between state
and districts
Moderate emphasis on
quality; responsibility
rests with districts
1. Mandates
Many mandates; most
with state funding
Moderate emphasis on Very limited
mandates; little state
mandates
funding
2. System Change
Strong/persistent
efforts
Modest initiatives
Limited initiatives
3. Capacity Building
Strong emphasis on
state-funded capacity
building
Limited state-funded
capacity building –
indirect
Limited state-funded
capacity building –
indirect
4. Inducements
Limited
Limited
Limited
Inner: SEA, Board of
Education, Oregon
Business Council,
Oregon Education
Association, State
Universities
Near: coalitions and
professional groups
Inner: Legislature,
Governor,
Commissioner
Policy Instruments
State Leadership Patterns
1. The Key Actors
Inner: Governor,
Commissioner,
General Assembly
Near: State Board of
Education, Education
Roundtable
Near: A variety of
business and farm
groups, professional
and community
organizations
226
2. Emphasis on
Setting Direction
3. How Influence Is
Exercised
Indiana
High. Key role of
elected officials; state
agencies equally
involved; seen by all
as influential.
Oregon
Moderate. Citizen
initiatives and
tradition of local input
place limits on role of
state.
Nebraska
Low but increasing.
The state is not seen
as a source of
leadership for
innovation and
improvement.
Influence exercised
through centralized
but public discussion;
use of mandates with
funding. Incorporation
of educational and
business sector voices
leads to low conflict
over education policy
leadership.
Influence exercised
through both central
and more localized
public discussion;
influence exercised by
many groups that are
not part of state
government.
Networks of influence
are well connected,
but diffuse.
Only the
Commissioner of
Education is seen as a
consistent source of
state influence; other
actors move in-andout, depending on the
issue. State influence
operates almost
exclusively through
discussion and
consensus building.
Results
Comparisons across the states warrant five claims, which we elaborate below.
States Are Leaders
All the states in our sample take their legislative leadership role in improving
teaching and learning seriously. All had enacted significant legislation related to setting
standards and establishing school-improvement strategies well before NCLB. Top
legislative priorities in these states include education finance, educational improvement,
and curricular standards. In addition, except for respondents from one state, respondents
believed that states, not the federal government, were driving leadership efforts aimed at
improving teaching and learning. Respondents in almost all states argued that they were
able to incorporate NCLB requirements into initiatives they had already put in place.
Nebraska, which resisted efforts to develop a state test, is the only exception.
Differences in Leadership Patterns and Policy Processes Are Enduring
In spite of the widespread view that federal initiatives are undermining the states‘
role in education, there is still a great deal of variation in education policy and practice
among the states. States differ from one another in the nature of specific reform policies
they adopt and in ways in which policy proposals find their way on to the policy agenda
and into legislation. There are well-established differences in processes of policy
development, the specific levers used, and the ways in which states attempt to influence
districts and schools. Moreover, state-level activity in support of leadership and
accountability appears to reflect the distinctive political cultures of the respective states.
States that appeared to be ―traditional‖ in the 1970s continue to be so today, while those
that were more ―individualistic‖ have changed very little. Only one state in our sample
227
(New Mexico) was engaged in an effort to challenge entrenched policy-making practices,
and it is unclear whether that effort—led at the time by the governor and a legislator—
will be successful.
States Vary in Whose Voices Are Most Prominent in Legislative Leadership
In some states, leadership reflects the preferences of ―political elites,‖ including
the governor and legislators. In other states, the range of influential parties is broader.
This is a difference that makes a difference. Where more voices are heard, state policies
are more likely to provide leeway for districts to make decisions based on local needs and
interests. The issue of power in policy formulation is important, but additional empirical
research on how diverse voices are included in or excluded from policy deliberations
during the policy formation process.
Comprehensive, Rationalized Policies for School Improvement Are the Exception
Rather than the Rule
All states acknowledge responsibility for improving teaching and learning. In our
sample, however, only three states had adopted an approach that could be categorized as
systemic and comprehensive rather than incremental. In other words, in Table 3.1.1,
Indiana represents the exception rather than the mainstream. In most states, support is
strong for allowing multiple, local voices to shape the policy agenda, and efforts at
systemic change are limited. State-level leadership has become increasingly important; at
the same time, most states have been reluctant to make radical changes to systems that
have historically been decentralized.
Mandates Are the Most Common Feature of Legislative Leadership; Inducements
Are the Least Common
Mandates, largely unfunded, are the most common feature of state education
policy, and this pattern predates the requirements of the No Child Left Behind national
legislation. In all but one of the states, for example, state testing mandates and/or required
state curriculum standards pre-dated NCLB. A small number of states have used levers
intended to create modest system change.265 For example, Indiana adopted a 5 point
educational quality indicator system in 2001, and merged its independent Teacher
Professional Standards Board into the Department of Education in 2005. Only a few
have made sustained efforts at capacity building (such as Missouri‘s 1993 Outstanding
Schools Act provided funding for a state-wide teacher professional development system,
or New Jersey‘s provision of significant additional resources to high poverty ―Abbott‖
school districts). There has been little formal change in legislative attention to capacity
building since the passage of NCLB. As we shall see in the next Section, however,
capacity building has become prominent in efforts made by state education agencies as
they respond to NCLB requirements. None of the states relies extensively on
inducements.
265
We exclude charter school authorization from our analysis of system change levers. In 1991 Minnesota
passed the first charter school law in the United States.
228
Implications for Policy and Practice
Five implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Federal leadership, backed by new legislation and widespread demand for
education reform, has not to date been sufficient to ensure across-the-board
patterns of improvement in teaching and learning. The states have enacted a
patchwork of standards and tests in their various efforts to improve teaching and
learning. This variability pre-dated NCLB,266 but this study confirms the
observation that federal legislation has not substantially diminished differences.267
2. In formulating education policy, states continue to use practices deeply embedded
in their particular traditions and political cultures. History and culture will
continue to play a mediating role in efforts to rationalize education policy.
State leaders respond to longstanding preferences about how policy
decisions should be made. It is unlikely, even given federal efforts to coordinate
education policy, that state legislative or gubernatorial leadership will become
more rationalized. A state‘s political culture does not preclude adjustment in
policies based on broad social preferences, but these adjustments will continue to
be filtered through, for example, interest-group lobbying, elite preferences, and
broad public discussion in efforts to reach consensus.
3. We will continue to see variation across states in levels of student learning for
some time. Many states operate with a limited set of instruments to bring to bear
on the task of improving and strengthening education policy. Given that states
tend not to change governance practices easily or rapidly, current patterns of
variation are likely to persist.
4. As long as states play the lead role in education policy making, their actions will
have significant implications for other actors with greater access to levers for
change. These actors include, of course, the local districts that must incorporate
state and local laws into their own sets of policies; they also include state
education agencies (SEAs).
Most SEAs play a significant role in adjudicating increasing demands
from state and federal legislation for accountability and testing; many also assist
districts in shaping standards and curriculum, while local schools districts are
responsible for adapting to legislation and regulations from state and national
levels. The way in which SEAs and local educators have adapted to state
initiatives will be the focus of the next two chapters.
266
267
McDermott (2003).
LeFloche et al. (2007).
229
5. Districts respond to state leadership initiatives, but districts are also actors in the
legislative process, usually indirectly through professional associations. In
interaction with legislators, often through professional associations, district
leaders may shape policy by emphasizing points of interest that condition how
they incorporate state policy into their districts‘ agendas. (This issue is explored
in more detail in Section 3.3.)
230
3.2
The Changing Leadership Role of State Education Agencies
Key Findings

State Education Agencies (SEAs) report major shifts in the focus of their work
brought about by state and federal standards and accountability legislation.

The greatest shift has been in the agencies‘ monitoring functions, from inputs to
outputs.

SEAs are putting more energy into partnerships for delivering technical assistance
to districts.

SEAs increasingly target technical assistance and support to districts with records
of low student achievement.

SEAs are required to take on new roles during a period of cutbacks in funding.
Introduction
In this section we address our second question about the state‘s leadership role in
efforts to improve teaching and learning: How do clusters of policies—systemic efforts at
shaping education reform—get embedded in state agencies and transmitted to create a
local impact?
We approach this question by focusing on state education agencies (SEAs). SEAs
play an important role in interpreting policy and providing support and guidance to
schools. In current national dialogues about school improvement, SEAs have increasingly
been asked to provide oversight and support for districts in their efforts to meet ambitious
goals for increasing student achievement.268 SEAs also clarify education policy for
districts.
We focus on two areas:

How do key SEA staff members see their role in respect to the goal of improving
teaching and learning? What activities define the role of SEA staff members as policy
actors and administrators across the states?

How are SEAs responding to increased responsibilities in a time of diminishing
resources?
268
Education Alliance (n.d.).
231
Prior Research
SEAs have maintained a leadership role in education for more than 150 years.269
As mediating institutions between state governments and local districts, their legitimacy
and impact on public education has varied greatly.270 Recently, national reform efforts
have enhanced the SEAs‘ role as agents for change. However, the capacity and influence
of the SEAs has been contingent on federal initiatives that support their leadership.271 For
example, Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Chapter 2 of the
Education Consolidation and Improvement Act provided funding and legitimization for
the administrative role of SEAs.272
Until recently, little empirical research has been done on the leadership role of
SEAs. In some circles there has been a misguided assumption that SEAs are passive
agents in reform initiatives.274 Some researchers have omitted SEAs from the roster of
participants in policy activity, focusing solely on the federal government, state
governments, school districts, and schools.275 Other researchers have explained that
leadership activity by SEAs varies greatly across states.276
273
Recent research has begun to cast SEAs in a new light, providing empirical
evidence to show that SEAs increasingly act as agents for quality assurance in reform
initiatives, particularly when state governments fail to do so. Still, we know little about
the complex nature of SEAs‘ mixed roles in policy, administration, support services,277
and political activity.278 In this mixed batch of scholarship, what stands out, in respect to
our research, is that SEAs play a pivotal role mediating between localism and federalism
in education policy and practice.
The challenges for SEAs are great. They are not always well structured or well
equipped for their responsibilities. Participants at a recent symposium at Brown
University identified some of the problems:

Departments within SEAs operate as silos; there is little collaboration or
communication across departments and districts.

It is difficult for SEAs to provide technical assistance to districts, given that their
primary role has been to monitor compliance.
269
Timar (1997).
Timar (1997).
271
Fuhrman & Elmore (1990); Timar (1997).
272
Fuhrman & Elmore (1990; Timar (1997).
273
Hamann & Lane (2004); Louis & Corwin (1984); Manna (2004); and Walker (2004) .
274
Hamann & Lane (2004); (Louis & Corwin, 1984).
275
Fowler (2000).
276
Dentler (1984); Louis & Corwin (1984).
277
James (1991).
278
Manna (2004); Timar (1997).
270
232

SEAs have difficulty hiring the right people to do the work of supporting district-level
activity aimed at improving teaching and learning.279
SEAs evolve within the social and political traditions of their respective states.
They are embedded in state policy cultures. They are nonetheless moving forward in the
current context of reform activity. In this sense, like the states, they are responding to
rising pressure to increase accountability and improve student learning. They are
enhancing their oversight of school programs, providing more support directly to districts
and school staff, and increasingly targeting districts in distress for assistance. For each of
these three key themes, our analysis will highlight states that exemplify the emerging role
of the SEAs.
New Evidence
In each SEA, we interviewed between two and four people who were directly
responsible (their actual titles varied) for relevant units dealing with accountability,
testing, school improvement, curriculum, and standards. We conducted a total of 29
interviews, by telephone, in the summer of 2008. Each interview lasted about an hour.
We transcribed the interviews and coded the transcripts according to themes implied by
two main questions:

How do key SEA staff members see their role in respect to the goal of improving
teaching and learning? What activities define the role of SEA staff members as policy
actors and administrators across the states?

How are SEAs responding to increased responsibilities in a time of diminishing
resources?
The Changing Leadership Roles of SEAS: Oversight and Monitoring.
During the early (pre-NCLB) standards movement that swept across the U.S.
education system, the statutory role of SEAs expanded to emphasize academic
achievement and the evaluation of district and school personnel (including teacher
licensure). This shift, supported by new uses of technology and database development, is
most evident in SEA work related to new accreditation processes. As SEA workloads
have increased, SEA staff members have focused increasingly on tasks related to
legislated curricular standards and assessment systems.
Re-evaluating the process of evaluation: Interpreting state mandates. Across the
states, quality education is defined by student performance on exams and preparedness
for college, workforce, or the military. A state‘s ability to provide a quality education is
often measured through evaluation and monitoring via state accreditation processes.
These processes focus on the quality of school operations, instruction, governance,
personnel, financing, student performance, and school safety. Accreditation processes
279
Education Alliance (2008).
233
have a long history. Across the states, however, new policies have strengthened systems
for evaluation and monitoring. One result has been increased attention to schools in need.
The states have not responded uniformly to new accountability requirements.
In Missouri, for example, respondents indicate that accreditation used to be compliancedriven, with similar evaluation standards and processes applied to each school. With the
advent of new accountability requirements, however, things changed. Within the SEA,
staff members engaged in new discussions about problems related to struggling schools,
where SEA support seemed inadequate and performance levels remained low. A
consensus emerged within the agency about the need to direct resources to the neediest
schools. A pre-requisite was more reliable accreditation measures, which accurately
reflected school performance. As a result, the SEA developed a new model for
evaluation. The new model, one interviewee said, ―makes it more clear which districts are
in the most need. High-performing schools are waived on some performance standards to
allow our office to focus energies on schools in need.‖
New Jersey, in contrast, has a long history of legal decisions related to school
funding and performance. This history has had a powerful impact on the New Jersey
Department of Education (NJDOE). The Abbott vs. Burke decision (1985) prompted the
NJDOE to focus its efforts and resources on 31 low-income/low-performing school
districts. For more than two decades, the NJDOE targeted most of its resources to these
―Abbott Districts,‖ assuming complete responsibility for oversight and governance in
three large districts.
While Missouri has just begun to differentiate among more- and less-needy
districts, New Jersey is moving in a different direction. In 2005, the state legislature
passed the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC) Act. This
legislation changed the role of the NJDOE by expanding the types of districts that can
receive support from the state. The intention was to shift the focus from the 31 Abbott
Districts, which were generally larger districts in a state that is dominated by very small
districts. The Act also provides for more monitoring by the SEA, which is required to
evaluate schools in five critical areas (operations management, instruction and programs,
governance, fiscal management, and personnel) every three years, as opposed to every
seven years under the former system. Since 2007, the DOE has been able to support
districts that were once overlooked. As one respondent pointed out, this also requires
―unlearning‖:
That‘s one of the things that we‘ve learned in the very short time—the 14
months—is that we have a lot of history in dealing with troubled districts,
but we‘ve worked with them in a different way. And now we‘re, under
QSAC, we have an obligation to work with all the districts …. This
year...we have districts that [have a] single buildings. So we are learning
how to deal with very small schools and districts that have the same,
oftentimes very similar problems but don‘t have the personnel or the
infrastructure.
234
Building trust: Eliminating the boogey man and humanizing state leadership. For
different reasons, SEA staff members believe that they do not have a favorable image
among district and school staff members. Not surprisingly, SEA respondents from across
the states explained that they are often met with feelings of trepidation among local staff
when it is their turn to go through the evaluation process. Respondents also explained that
they are taking an active approach to dispelling such feelings by efforts to build trust.
Because of the contentious environment that surrounds evaluation and monitoring,
respondents said, the effort to build trust is a key component of their more general effort
to help schools and districts identify areas in need of improvement. One Mississippi
respondent spoke for many:
Initially, we‘re not received real well... . Because they think that we‘re
coming to ―get ‘em.‖ So we have to go in and do a lot of, kind of a, what I
call almost a PR kind of campaign to let them know it‘s not a ―gotcha‖
kind of a process. We‘re here to help you figure out what are some things
that are likely causing the test scores to be low and then how are we going
to fix them so that we can advance the achievement of these students and
move the academic performance of the school and the district forward. So,
once we leave, we‘re pretty well received. Actually, most of the time, they
don‘t want us to leave; they want us to stay there with them. But initially,
it‘s a little rocky.
Respondents in about half of the states we sampled explained that focusing on
relationships and customer service was a priority established by their current state
superintendents. A slightly smaller group claimed that relationship-building initiatives
were initiated by their offices—i.e., were not driven by departmental policy. Irrespective
of whose priority the shift to ―customer focused‖ work had been, most respondents
explained that building trust was a response to the strained relationship, which had
developed in the early years of the accountability movement, between the state and the
districts. Here is one respondent‘s reaction:
I would say that there are improved relationships with the districts... .
They understand that we‘re not just there to point a finger and say, ―Ah,
you did that wrong, that wrong and that wrong.‖ ... [Y]es, we all have to
be in compliance with the federal and state statutes...[but]... we are also
the technical assistance entity, more so…when I first came to the
department. We represented a different authority that could come down
and, you know, shut down shop if we chose to. But that‘s not the way we
work and it‘s not the way we want them to see us.
Monitoring and takeover under resource constraints: The dark side of mandates.
The purpose of state accreditation is to ensure that schools meet specific quality
standards. In some states, if a district fails to meet requirements for accreditation, the
state can take over that district. Three states in our sample have engaged in takeovers. But
a takeover by an SEA is a drastic move that no state wants to make, in part because
takeovers put a strain on resources. SEAs operate with relatively small staffs. In one state
235
we sampled, fewer than five staff members are responsible for the oversight of
accountability and school-improvement plans of more than 30 schools, with dozens of
schools being added each year. Across the states, staff members rely increasingly on
other groups to aid in their oversight efforts. In Mississippi, retired professionals have
been a key resource:
We go into the schools that are considered the lowest-performing schools
in the state and try to help them with an outsider‘s point of view. We have
100-plus contract workers that are retired educators. . . ; and they‘re
trained on these instruments, and they go in and evaluate these school
systems to try to help them. . . figure out that these are some of the things
that are possibly contributing to the low student test scores, low student
achievement scores.
Missouri also goes outside the state system to use quasi-independent Regional
Professional Development Centers to support oversight efforts. The need to do so arises
primarily because of state cutbacks, which have meant substantial loss of SEA staff. At
the same time (and partly as a result), the SEA has had to reorganize—to move staff
away from working on specific programs toward a more general school-improvement
strategy that all staff members can share in. However, the process of changing internal
culture in the agency is slow, and it requires collaboration with other divisions. And at
the same time, as one respondent pointed out, ―Nothing has been removed.‖ Reliance on
the Regional Professional Development Centers is a necessity, but it has had
unanticipated benefits:
The [Regional Centers] view themselves as collaborative partners. They
do monitor whether the district is doing what it said it would…and
effectively for student achievement…but they can do this more than DESE
staff because they have a working relationship with districts. They serve as
critical friends…know the right questions to ask and can hold districts
accountable.
Those states (e.g., Oregon, Texas and Nebraska) that have substantial regional
agencies also use those agencies in providing professional development and assistance in
meeting standards.
The Changing Roles of SEAs: Direct Support and Capacity Building for Districts
and Administrators
Traditionally, school-improvement activity has emphasized professional
development in curriculum and instruction, and compliance with state initiatives. Four of
the states in our sample had legislatively initiated and well-established programs for
administrator professional development prior to the beginning of our study (see Table
3.2.1). All, however, targeted principals and all delivered professional assistance and
development through semi-autonomous units or through regional educational service
agencies (RESAs)
236
Table 3.2.1
State Policy Initiatives Related to Leadership Development
1985:
Indiana
Principal Leadership Academy (IPLA) established. Current
Indiana
program provides 18 days of professional development over two years to
cohorts.
Missouri 1985: Leadership Academy established; 1987 amended to establish satellite
programs across the state. 1993 gave the Leadership Academy responsibility
for administering state funds for professional development; 1994 established
regional professional development centers. The Leadership Academy was
given major responsibility for developing and revising leadership preparation
standards.
1984: Principal Executive Program established based on legislative task
North
Carolina force recommendations. 1995: UNC-Center for School Leadership
established by legislature. The Center incorporates the NC Center for the
Advancement of Teaching, the Teacher Academy, the Principals‘ Executive
Program and the NC Mathematics-Science Education Network.
Nebraska No state level activity mentioned; training and support provided through
regional service agencies (ESDs) on a request basis.
2004: Professional development initiative for school leaders. Applies to
New
principals, superintendents, & ―everybody that falls into a school
Jersey
administrator certification.‖ Administrators must identify school leadership
professional development goals, connect goals to improving teaching &
learning, and develop a professional growth plan. At present: Inactive (there
is a website, but no new information on it). SAELP grant not mentioned in
policy interviews.
A number of initiatives proposed at various points; none was passed with
New
funding. SAELP not mentioned in interviews, but is mentioned in legislative
Mexico
briefs. No evidence on state websites of any significant continuing activities.
1999: Blue Ribbon Panel on leadership lead to establishment of leadership
New
academy. Wallace Foundation grants used to focus on New York City; this
York
leadership academy still very active. Major state focus is on teacher centers;
leadership development outside of the NYC area is provided by RESAs
(BOCES)
No significant legislative action mentioned; 2004: Wallace Foundation
Oregon
grants resulted in six school districts across the state serving as
"Demonstration Districts" for what was then known as "the State Action for
Education Leadership." Participating districts expanded to 10, and formed
the Oregon Leadership Network (OLN) .
1995: Texas Principals Leadership Initiative (TPLI) created by an education
Texas
and business coalition and approved in 1995 by the state Education
Commissioner, provides assessment-driven professional development for
Texas principals. 2006: a principal academy (TXPEP) was funded by the
state. Provides leadership professional development, coaching, mentoring to
cohorts focused on quality management with a strong business focus.
237
The role of the SEAs in providing support to local educators has evolved. As
noted above, SEAs now try to focus on growth, development, and school improvement—
not merely on compliance—in working with districts. In examining this trend, we
identified four themes emerging across the states: (1) Utilizing regional organizations and
building central office capacity; (2) Building capacity with limited resources; (3)
Blending mandates and capacity building; and (4) Changing technical assistance roles of
SEAs: Targeting districts in distress.
Utilizing regional organizations and building central office capacity. Table 3.2.1
indicates that many states use Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) to help
provide important services as well as helping to provide oversight of districts and
schools. In the case of states like Missouri, Nebraska, New York and Oregon and Texas,
RESAs provide professional development services. In general, across all states that have
them, RESAs are used for professional training, development, and instructional support.
The structure and position of RESAs in the educational system, and their
relationship to SEAs, vary from state to state. Some exist as dispersed offices functioning
as regional offices of the SEA (Texas). Some are quasi-independent entities that contract
with the SEA (Nebraska, Oregon). Funding arrangements also vary; some quasiindependent RESAs may receive nearly all or only a fraction of their funds from the state
(Missouri). Other RESAs are supported primarily by service-for-sale transactions with
schools and districts. Respondents from three states below highlight the important role
that RESAs play in supporting efforts to provide quality education:
It‘s not usually our agency officials that are going on to the site. It‘s
usually some either Regional Education Service Center. We have 20
Regional Educational Service Centers in the state that we provide funding
to them to do that. Or we have other non-profits that we grant funding to
go and do that work for us. They are quasi. Their Executive Director
reports technically to the Commissioner, but they have a separate Board of
Directors and they also receive some state funding and other funding they
generate on a fee basis from services they provide to school districts. They
are sort of a quasi-governmental agency. (Texas Education Agency)
What we‘re doing in our unit is opening satellite offices in five different
regions in the state, and we will work with existing educational partners,
including those regional education cooperatives. Well, they‘ll support the
schools, leaders, and teachers through the districts. They‘ll certainly work
some with the schools, but to build local capacity we really work through
the districts to support those schools. (New Mexico Public Education
Department)
We wanted to use our ESDs; we wanted to use that regional structure
because that‘s the one that closest to the action. ESDs are closer to
districts than we are. And this was driven by diminishing capacity on our
part, to be honest. We just did not have the capacity, either financial or
238
human, to work with schools directly…the positive thing is that we are
building capacity at the district level, the districts are rebuilding their own
capacity to better serve their schools. But at the same time, there is this
perception that we are not providing as much support and leadership as we
have in the past. And again, some of that is driven by capacity. (Oregon
Department of Education)
Of course states do not rely exclusively on RESAs to support capacity
development at the district level. Even states that have less well-established RESAs are
finding that they need new collaborators within their own agencies in order to meet the
needs of schools and districts. Indiana, for example, is blending funding from several
offices and programs to provide a two-year institute academy for principals and teams
from underperforming schools.
Building capacity with limited resources: Expectations for state leadership often
outweigh the capacity of the SEAs to respond. As noted, SEAs rely on regional service
units to provide support for capacity building, but there has been another shift in strategy
as well. In most states, capacity building has focused on providing direct training and
support to teachers in schools. While districts were usually informed of these efforts, they
were not viewed as partners. One of our respondents, for example, indicated that the SEA
felt obligated to respond to direct requests for assistance from schools because, in many
cases, districts lacked the capacity or knowledge to provide such assistance, or they
provided assistance that was not deemed helpful.
Increasingly, however, limited resources and an expanded leadership agenda have
prompted SEAs to view districts as partners. This shift has been consistent with the
increasing emphasis in NCLB legislation on district as well as school performance. The
significance of this shift for tracing the effects of state leadership on improved student
learning should not be underestimated. As one state respondent put it:
We began basically to look at the state/local relationship and felt that the
emphasis really needs to be placed on districts because districts are
ultimately responsible for the performance of their schools and students.
In our case, we felt the need to build capacity at the district level to
support schools and students. And therefore, we made the shift that we‘re
going to focus on, work with district level leadership.
Even in states where system change has not been prominent in legislative
initiatives, it has begun to seep into the working assumptions of SEA leaders who are
tasked with responsibility for translating legislation into action. In several SEAs, we
found respondents who argued that they saw districts in new light—not as administrative
units that disperse funds, but as actors in the larger leadership-for-change system in the
state:
The other thing that really influenced our thinking is to develop districtlevel leadership...you can go into a school and bring about changes, but
239
those changes will not be sustainable over time if the district did not buy
into those changes and support them.
Even states that have long sought to build school-level leadership through
professional development have now shifted that work, in some measure, to
superintendents and districts. Indiana, for example, which has sponsored a state-level
leadership academy for principals since 1985, has begun hosting study councils for
superintendents. Shifting the focus of support to districts as opposed to individual schools
is a proposed goal of many SEA offices. However, it is a work in progress, not an
accomplished fact; each SEA in our sample has continued to do significant work in
schools and relies primarily on RESAs or other entities to provide professional
development.
While respondents from all but one state shared examples of SEA efforts to
develop the leadership capacity of principals, this aspect of state leadership did not
emerge in the data as a changing role of state leadership. Hence, our goal in this section
of the report is not to suggest that states‘ efforts to increase school leader capacity is
diminishing or absent. Rather, it is to demonstrate an increasing effort of divisions within
SEAs to focus more on developing the capacity of LEA leadership so that LEAs can in
turn take more of an initiative to develop school leaders.
Blending mandates and capacity building. SEAs also are coping with diminishing
resources and increasing demands by trying to integrate their monitoring tasks with tasks
of providing technical assistance. Coupling the two represents a significant change from
the practices of the past, in which reporting and oversight were pro forma except in cases
of egregious problems. In many states, respondents emphasized that, while this shift
occurred prior to NCLB, it has been accelerated by post-NCLB changes in reporting
requirements. In one state, several respondents emphasized that the SEA is combining the
two roles by using the district‘s plan for improvement as a point of departure. As one
person noted:
Basically we engage [the low performing districts] throughout the year,
we provide technical assistance, we do some monitoring, and we do some
reviews of what they‘re doing and how they‘re doing … . And…our
involvement intensifies, it increases over time… . I believe we‘re
experiencing a great deal of success with it, simply because we take it
seriously at the state level. We use their plan to define our engagement
and interaction with that school in the district…they take it seriously and
it‘s a living, breathing document that they‘re constantly modifying based
on what they‘re doing.
Changing technical assistance roles of SEAs: Targeting districts in distress. The
emergence of SEA support of districts is linked to the new concept of districts in distress,
arising from the NCLB requirement for school improvement plans for ―failing districts.‖
In most states we sampled, extending support to districts represented a new responsibility
for SEAs; state accountability systems had traditionally focused on individual schools.
240
Furthermore, in states that have had a long history of providing technical assistance and
support to schools, there has been an emphasis on responsiveness—―we‘ll help if you
call‖—with respect to districts. Since most calls for help came from schools, states
needed to develop a new way of working with a very different group of actors.
The recent Education Alliance symposium on the role of SEAs in working with
districts concluded that SEA services and capacities now are poorly aligned with district
needs, and that SEAs lack a strategic understanding of how best to intervene with and
support districts (Education Alliance, 2008, p. 54). Our data, which we collected not long
after the symposium, generally confirm this conclusion. Although the shift to serving
districts is on people‘s minds, actual ability to work with districts remains limited. The
lack of a strategic focus for working with districts is complicated in states that provide
support primarily through RESAs, over which they often have relatively little control
(except in states like Texas and New Jersey, where they are regional offices of the SEA).
The Big Constraint: Delivering More Assistance With Less
SEA respondents explain that in their efforts to provide support for districts they
are limited by fiscal constraints. They are working, they say, with fewer resources,
smaller staffs, and, therefore, diminished reservoirs of professional knowledge and skill.
Given the heavy demands they face, the resource problem is especially pressing. Sample
responses from three states emphasize the point:
Funding has not kept up with the complex demands of schools. The
federal dollars help, but the huge gap has to be picked up by the state. We
really have not kept up.
[The recent budget cut and freeze] had an extraordinarily hard impact on
the work of the office. I‘ve got gaps in places where I can‘t afford to have
gaps. …Because I‘ve reached that point where I‘ve fallen below the ability
to insure that I can get everything done correctly and on time.
And…having people leave and having the problems that you have with
trying to hire in a state organization, that‘s driving back to where I am.
You‘re never staffed to the level where you need to be staffed.
I think we could do more. I‘m hoping that in the future, as funding gets to
a better situation we‘re able to replace our staff, build our capacities to
provide more services to districts. We‘re lacking a lot of in-depth
knowledge and expertise in certain areas that we‘ve just lost over the
years. Maybe I‘ve got a hundred or so people in my area, and every week,
you know, every couple weeks I‘ve got another retirement without a
replacement. It‘s hard, you know, you‘re losing depth of knowledge that
you no longer can provide.
Resource constraints are leading to innovation. In response, SEAs are
reassessing their practices, sometimes introducing new processes for district
evaluation and support. North Carolina provides one example. Priorities there
241
have shifted from providing assistance to schools with weak performance
(primarily using retired professionals and teachers on loan) to targeting districts in
distress. This shift occurred because of concerns about the success of direct
school assistance, and worries about the cost of sustaining that approach. The
problem of resources has not been resolved through this change. At the time of
our interviews (summer 2008), the North Carolina SEA was working with six
districts. However, 60 districts have been identified as in need of improvement.
The need to target districts has raised issues of how to set priorities and how to
combine professional development services with assistance in curricular alignment for
district leaders. Should SEAs target those districts with schools that are struggling and
barely succeeding, or should they target districts with the largest number of schools in
need of corrective action? The two measures yield a different set of districts in need, and
they imply a different set of support and intervention strategies. The challenge of
realigning resources and priorities within SEAs has slowed the process of getting the
right help to the right districts and schools.
Collaboration is central. SEA respondents report that intra-agency collaboration
has had a strong, positive effect on their ability to address the needs of school districts.
Across the states, the rise of intra-agency collaboration amounts to a change in
institutional culture. It is a change that state superintendents have sought over the last five
years. Other proponents include middle managers (e.g., curriculum directors), who
increasingly make their presence known in important decision-making processes (e.g.,
standards development) where they have been left out in the past. This change in culture
has been a challenge; respondents see it, however, as a valuable means of streamlining
district support. In Nebraska, the SEA is piloting a process of collaborating across agency
units for a continuous improvement model:
We have actually been going in as teams from [the SEA] to work with
school districts. So, for instance, the early childhood person would be a
part of the team. Our federal programs person might be a part of the team.
Our curriculum person might be a part of a team. We often partner with
our intermediate service agencies, with leaders from other schools. … In
the past …they were separate [monitoring] visits. …Now we‘re working
on, ―Let‘s all do that together.‖ Helping the districts see how they use all
of those programs towards a central goal to improve their school. So that
is just finishing the pilot year. That is not a requirement at this point that
every district does an integrated visit.
The new emphasis on collaboration within certain SEAs indicates a realization
that the responsibility for school improvement is shared across offices within
departments. Traditional SEA structures, which call for a division of labor across
different federal programs, continue to make such collaboration difficult in many states.
242
Summary of Findings
Evidence from this analysis points to six key findings.
1. The standards and accountability movement has brought about an increase in
state monitoring of education. It also has caused SEAs to shift their focus, relatively
speaking, away from finances and facilities to factors more directly related to the
improvement of teaching and learning.
All states have long-standing accreditation systems to monitor the quality of
public education. Within the last two decades, increasing pressure from the national
standards movement has been a primary catalyst for changes in oversight and monitoring.
Most states have responded with innovations and have revised key components of
oversight procedures in response to new standards. New state and federal policies have
had a strong impact on SEA staff in all states.
2. SEAs continue to be the agencies primarily responsible for translating state
and federal policy into workable requirements for districts and schools.
This requires that SEA staff understand not just the laws, but also the conditions
for implementation that exist in schools and districts. The mismatch between
school/district abilities, which are affected by size and student demographic
characteristics as well as leadership competence, make SEA staff increasingly interested
in the technical assistance component of their work.
3. The shift from a focus on funding and facilities to curricular and instructional
improvements creates more intense tension in states where there is less experience with
state accountability.
Some states we sampled have worked with state standards and assessment
programs for a decade or more. Others have been affected by the movement more
recently, and they are now grappling with a need for changes in resource allocation as
well as changes in climate or identity. Capacity to deliver on new, higher standards is
viewed as a problem in all states, but smaller states with smaller SEAs feel harder
pressed. Some requirements impose demands that exceed SEA capacities.
4. NCLB appeared to have a limited effect on educational legislative activity (as
noted in Chapter 3.1). In contrast, it has had a significant direct effect on SEAs.
SEAs are required to act on many provisions of NCLB legislation that have not
been the subject of legislative action at the state level. This is evident in the NCLB
requirement that SEAs establish state support systems designed to assist schools and
districts that repeatedly fail to meet state-defined Adequate Yearly Progress achievement
targets. This support function (as opposed to a focus on accountability and compliance)
represents a new dimension of SEA activity in many states.
243
5. SEA adaptation to the new accountability and standards environment are
layered on to older monitoring obligations.
The growth of SEAs was stimulated by the surge of categorical federal programs
in the 1960s and 70s, which created the emphasis on fiscal and program compliance
monitoring. Although SEAs are now expected to monitor outcomes (student
achievement) as well as provide technical assistance, they are still obligated to carry out
their responsibilities for pre-existing programs.
6. NCLB requires technical assistance roles that are new for many SEAs.
Many SEAs are not well equipped to provide the kind of responsive technical
assistance and support that is needed by schools and districts. Although many rely on
their regional educational service agencies and other partners, the shift in the NCLB
legislation to providing direct services to districts is new and demanding.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Seven implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. Introduce legislation to support internal collaboration and organizational change
on the part of SEAs. For the most part, SEA staff members and others view the
recent change in SEA roles positively. Across the states, respondents explain that
the NCLB has helped SEAs better define their role as service agencies. The need
to respond to mandates in national and state legislation has prompted SEA staff
members from different offices to break out of their silos and share responsibility
for educational success. This process of internal collaboration and organizational
change is slow in many states, however, and it could be better supported with
legislative action that would clarify or simplify existing requirements for program
and fiscal monitoring.
2. Increase the capacity of SEA staffs. Capacity-building helps educational leaders
at all levels cope with heavy mandates. SEA staff could be more effective if the
capacity of their offices were increased. Capacity-building will require both
additional staffing in some states, but also additional professional development
and training for new roles.
3. Redefine the role of SEAs and their relationships with technical assistance
agencies (RESAs) to focus on partnerships with districts. Most SEAs are
dependent on RESAs to provide technical assistance and training at the local
level. Currently, RESA agencies in most states are quasi-independent; they
respond more directly to requests from school and district clients than to underfunded SEAs. In the past, most requests for service have lead to training for
244
teachers or other school-focused projects. SEAs have limited incentives to offer
RESAs to alter practices and services that have provided a steady flow of income
over many years.
4. Redefine the responsibilities of the SEAs for managing federal categorical
programs in such a way as to allow SEAs to devote more time and energy to
helping schools and districts improve teaching and learning.
The dilemma of increasing demands on SEAs and declining resources for
SEAs requires further investigation. Testimony from SEA respondents across the
10 states suggests that SEAs do not receive enough funding to meet their
responsibilities adequately. Quality of services and outcomes are diminished, and
districts are not receiving adequate support. We suggest further investigation
aimed at finding ways to strengthen SEA offices and/or their partner
organizations. Possibilities include increased funding or the hiring of staff
members who will bring new levels of knowledge and skill to their work.
5.
School improvement requires shared leadership at the state and district level.
When SEA staff members emphasize their role as service providers rather than
compliance monitors, they are in a position to improve their relationships with
district and school staff. As relationships improve, SEAs are able to have a greater
impact on district and school improvements, and to take greater satisfaction in
their efforts.
6.
Collaboration is an SEA‘s greatest ally. Working in state government can be a
difficult and stressful job, particularly in a period of increasing pressure to expand
the scope of employees‘ responsibilities. However, SEA staff who reported
collaborating with other units in their departments expressed greater satisfaction
and improvement of initiatives. Those with stronger links to outside agencies are
also more optimistic about meeting new demands.
7. University schools and departments of education should develop programs to
provide leadership training suitable for SEA staff members. In response to the
concern that SEAs are losing knowledge capacity as staff members retire faster
than they are being replaced, we suggest that schools of education begin to take
stock of this important change.
245
3.3
District and School Responses to State Leadership
Key Findings

State policy influences principals, but the extent of the influence depends on the
degree to which local administrators see the state as supportive.

The reaction of district officials to state policies varies based on the political
culture of the state and on local context and capacities.

District leaders view state policies as vehicles for achieving local goals.

Smaller districts are more likely to regard the SEA as a source of support;
medium-sized and larger districts have other sources, often internal to the districts
that are more important to them.
Introduction
For state policy to affect student learning, it must first pass through the filter of
school and district leadership: local values, beliefs, policies, and behaviors. State effects
on student learning will always be indirect, therefore, and difficult to trace. Local
processes might enhance those effects or blunt them. We have sought to identify and
assess the importance of the relevant local processes. In Part Two we examined district
leaders‘ choices and behaviors as they affect school leadership and student learning. Here
we examine the influence of state policies on the leadership behaviors of principals and
district staff members. We also explore how districts view the strategies used by state
governments to initiate change at the local level. We focus primarily on small (2,500
students or less) and medium-sized (2,501-24,999 students) districts—settings that have
been under-examined in investigations of the local effects of state policy.
To examine district-level responses to state policy makers and administrative
agencies, we draw on perceptions of power, networking, and loose coupling. The
examination shows, not surprisingly, that districts and schools vary considerably in their
reactions to state standards and accountability requirements. The smaller districts we
sampled tended to see themselves as instruments of state policy implementation and as
capable of harnessing state policy to local priorities; several of the medium and larger
district portrayed state policy more as a framework and context for the pursuit of local
priorities for improvement; others, in particular larger districts with poor student-learning
profiles, depicted themselves more as victims of state policies leading to unfair
assessments of the quality of education provided by school and district personnel in their
jurisdictions. Some differences among in district responses to state policy corresponded
to the larger political cultures of their states.
246
At the outset we note that relatively little empirical research has been done on
state-local relationships, particularly in respect to smaller districts. We therefore have
framed our research in a set of exploratory questions:
1. How do principals react to state policies, and what impact do their reactions have on
their leadership behavior?
2. How do non-urban districts interpret their relationship with state policy makers and
agencies?
3. Do differences among states help to account for differences in the way in which
district administrators interpret state leadership for improvement and their own
responsibilities?
Previous Research
Research on school districts, dormant for some time, is entering a new phase of
activity, which has produced important investigations of the district's role in promoting
educational improvement.280 Many recent studies have focused on the internal
organization and decision-making processes in districts, illuminating the districts‘
complex struggles to create and sustain improvements in schools.281 Others examine
ways in which district personnel work with schools, showing the link between decisions
and potential student effects.282 Relatively few look at the district‘s role in interpreting
state policy initiatives, in spite of early attention given to the role of the district as a
(re)interpreter of state policy.283
Researchers generally have focused on medium- or large-sized districts that
clearly constitute complex organizational settings. Rural school districts, with a few
exceptions,284 have not been extensively studied, except in respect to school finance.
Inattention to small, rural districts no doubt reflects the fact that most students in the
United States attend schools in larger districts, although smaller districts the vast majority
of districts across the country.. It is still the case, however, that many small districts,
especially in rural states, are very disadvantaged in their capacity to implement state and
federal policies.285
Conceptual Lenses for Explaining Relationships
Research to date provides various lenses through which observers have viewed
and sought to explain relationships between state-level leadership and leadership in
districts and schools. In this analysis we use three of these lenses.
280
Togneri & Anderson (2003); Iatarola & Fruchter (2004); and Marsh (2002).
Anderson & Rodway (2009); Coburn & Talbert (2006); Firestone & Martinez (2007); and Honig (2003).
282
Stein & Coburn (2007).
283
Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer (2002); Spillane (1998); and Youngs (2001).
284
Howey (1996); Keedy & Allen (1998).
285
Jimerson (2005).
281
247
Hierarchical power: States and systemic coherence. Many observers regard the
state as a superordinate actor—constitutionally legitimated as such—and local
governments as subordinate.286 State and federal programs assume this view, as do some
foundations. In their superordinate role, states provide funding and monitor what the
districts do with it.287 While states vary in the degree to which they provide a strong
structure and financial foundations for local education, the states‘ legitimate authority in
many areas of local practice is largely uncontested, and it has increased substantially in
the last few decades.288 From this perspective, conflicts in state-local relations usually
occur not because the states exceed their legitimate authority but because districts often
lack capacity to respond.289 To overcome these difficulties, some observers contend,
states should pursue comprehensive, systemic reform in order to attain policy coherence
between the levels of government.290
Networks of power and influence. Constitutional allocations of authority are one
thing; what local districts actually do may be another. Some observers emphasize the
point that districts rarely respond to states simply because of the state‘s legitimate
position of power. Instead, districts act within the policy system, vying with state actors
at all stages of policy making to ensure that policy actions will be acceptable.291 And,
after state policies have been enacted, they must still be implemented; in matters of
implementation, too, local districts and state agencies use personal contacts to negotiate
how both parties can best respond.292 Thus, even though states have legitimate authority,
it is exercised through informal and formal networks that help to shape local responses to
state policy. In some cases, state policy initiatives are not taken seriously by local
agencies.293 Even under current state accountability requirements, some local educators
do not view the state as a powerful force for changing basic practices.
Loose coupling. The notion that educational organizations are ―loosely coupled‖
was introduced by Weick (1976) to explain why policies enacted in one part of the
education system often have limited impact in other parts. Various studies in the 1970s
and 80s described the limits of higher levels of authority in the governance structure for
education, and the relatively weak impact of state policy on student outcomes.294 But
loose coupling does not mean that no influence flows from superordinate entities.295 Even
as schools are busy developing their own policies and initiatives, they pay attention to
demands from ―outside the system‖ when those demands are consistent with the
directions in which their organizations are already moving.296
286
Edwards (1933); Haskew (1970); Lutz (1986).
Timar (1994); Wong (1991).
288
Fuhrman (1987); Lutz (1986).
289
Bali (2003).
290
Fuhrman (1994).
291
Fuhrman & Elmore (1990); Marshall et al. (1986); Mazzoni (1993).
292
Firestone & Nagle (1995) and Spillane (1998).
293
Ginsberg & Wimpelberg (1987).
294
Marshall (1988).
295
Gamoran & Dreeben (1986); Swanson & Stevenson (2002).
296
Honig & Hatch (2004b).
287
248
State policy culture and district size as moderators. District responses to state
policy obviously do not take place in a vacuum. Instead, as noted in Section 3.1, the state
government operates within a policy culture that affects how individuals and groups
relate to one another when action is suggested or required. We rely on the traditional
definition of political culture as enduring political attitudes and behaviors associated with
groups that live in a defined geographical context.297 In addition, we have known for
some time that district size (and poverty) make a difference in how districts cope with
demands for reform.298
New Evidence
Method
Evidence addressing the first of our three questions derives from the 2008
principal and teacher surveys and from interviews with district office administrators over
the three site visits.
The principal survey contained questions about respondents‘ attitudes toward the
effects of state policy on their school. We standardized four of these items (each
measured on a six-point scale that reflected attitudes toward the effects of state policies)
and added them to form an index of Positive State Policy Influence. These questions
assessed attitudes about the state‘s influence on professional learning—e.g., The state
gives schools the freedom and flexibility to do their work, and State standards stimulate
additional professional learning in our school. The index achieved an alpha of .76. We
analyzed the data in the context of seven additional measures related to principals‘
assessments of the districts‘ focus on accountability—through such items, e.g., as Our
district has explicit targets beyond NCLB targets, and The district uses student
achievement data to determine PD needs and resources. The district-accountability index
achieved an alpha of .87. In addition, we used teachers‘ descriptions of principals‘
instructional leadership as the dependent variable in the analysis. (Descriptions of the
instructional leadership variables have been presented in previous chapters.) In
interpreting the responses, we also turned back to the data on state policy cultures (see
Table 3.1.1), probing in depth for evidence of particular legislation that might have a
direct connection to local leaders (for example, leadership development initiatives, or
major changes in standards for administrator practice).
Evidence addressing research questions 2 and 3 derived from a detailed analysis
of all interviews conducted with superintendents and associate superintendents during
three site visits in seven small and medium-sized districts. The sampling of the districts
was purposive, using a ―grounded theory‖ premise that the task of developing
explanations for complex phenomena is best advanced by sequential examinations of
several different contexts.299 We therefore began by examining two small districts in two
states that exhibited the most distinctive differences in state policy culture. We then
297
Elazar (1970); Lieske (1993).
Hannaway & Kimball (1998).
299
Glaser & Strauss (1967).
298
249
added additional small districts from states that we knew, from our previous analysis
(Section 3.1), to be somewhat different. When we turned to medium-sized districts, we
deliberately selected those for which we had complete data and which were in states that
were not part of our initial examination. In presenting qualitative data here, we have
chosen to illustrate our findings with fuller cases from four representative districts,
although our analysis is based on all of the more elaborated case studies.
To look for differences between these districts and the larger districts in our
sample, we carried out a less detailed analysis of the larger districts, looking only at the
superintendent interviews from the third site visit. We chose the third visit because it
provided the best lens through which to examine the effects of state standards emerging
after the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, which required some of our states to
change their standards and testing procedures.
Principal Assessments of State Policy
The principal survey reveals a surprisingly positive assessment of the effects of
state policy (see Figure 11). For example, the mean for principals‘ ratings on the item
State standards stimulate additional professional learning in our school was 4.39 on a
six-point scale, with more than 60% of the respondents giving the item a rating that was
somewhat to very positive. Although fewer principals gave the items State policies help
us to accomplish our school’s learning objectives and The state communicates clearly
with our district about educational priorities the highest rating of ―strongly agree,‖ both
items suggest that most principals have positive views of the state‘s role in these areas.
Only one of the four items, The state gives schools the flexibility and freedom to do their
work, garnered a mean response suggesting that most respondents disagree.
Are these assessments, obtained in 2008, different from those we collected at the
beginning of the project, when principals had less experience with the effects of state
adaptations to NCLB? The answer is, not surprisingly, that they are different; in all cases,
the rankings are lower in 2008. To give two examples: in 2005, principals rated the
positive effects of state standards on professional learning with a mean of 4.82; in 2008,
they rated the same item at 4.39. In the case of the item measuring state policies as a
support for accomplishing our school‘s learning objectives, the mean rating was 4.51 in
2005, compared with 4.02 in 2008. We compared the means and standard deviations
among the states on the standardized Positive State Policy Index for both years. The
results (presented in Table 3.3.1 and 3.3.2) show significant differences between the
states in both years. Overall, the states that were more positive in 2005 are also more
positive in 2008 (Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska), while two of those in which
policies were viewed least favorably by principals (New Mexico and Indiana) show
limited change relative to the entire population.
250
M = 4.02
SD = 1.36
N = 211
M = 4.39
SD = 1.21
N = 211
F1. State standards stimulate additional
professional learning in our school.
F2. State policies help us accomplish our
school’s learning objectives.
M = 3.72
SD = 1.48
N = 211
F3. The state gives schools freedom and
flexibility to do their work.
M = 4.16
SD = 1.38
N = 210
F5. The state communicates clearly with
our district about educational policies.
Figure 11: Principal Assessments of State Policy
While it is important not to over-interpret a table that is based on relatively few
responses in each state (and a very low response rate in Texas in 2008), we see some
volatility in the results. For example, Oregon‘s scores dropped from among the more
251
positive to the more negative, while New Jersey‘s score also dropped from average to
below average. It is notable that there were major changes to the tests in both states
during our study.
Table 3.3.1
State Scores on the Positive State Policy Index, 2005 and 2008
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Indiana 05
Indiana 08
39
36
-.3259
-.2014
.57908
.70980
.09273
.11830
Missouri 05
Missouri 08
19
26
.2861
.1945
.58461
.80660
.13412
.15819
North Carolina 05
North Carolina 08
29
23
.2653
.5895
.55009
.53837
.10215
.11226
Nebraska 05
Nebraska 08
32
31
.2664
.1004
.60512
.79066
.10697
.14201
New Jersey 05
New Jersey 08
21
26
.0150
-.4055
.54704
.85777
.11937
.16822
New Mexico 05
New Mexico 08
20
15
-.6111
-.1918
1.08332
.91451
.24224
.23613
New York 05
New York
32
18
-.0902
.0772
.61023
.65959
.10787
.15547
Oregon 05
Oregon 08
27
24
.1700
-.3334
.54423
.83796
.10474
.17105
Texas 05
Texas 08
38
11
.0545
.5559
.92301
.77967
.14973
.23508
Total 05
257
.0032
.72996
.04553
Total 08
210
.0027
.81992
.05658
252
Table 3.3.2
ANOVA: Positive State Policy Index, 2005
ZSTATE
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
F
4.906
18.637
8
2.330
Within Groups
117.769
248
.475
Total
136.406
256
Sig.
.000
Table 3.3.3
ANOVA: Positive State Policy Index, 2008
ZSTATE
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
21.747
8
2.718
Within Groups
118.757
201
.591
Total
140.504
209
F
4.601
Sig.
.000
The results are not, of course, directly comparable because the individuals in the
2005 and 2008 samples are different due to principal turnover and the need to replace
some schools. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that significant differences in
sample means reflect some collective decrease in the sense that the state is a supportive
partner in educational reform, and some shifts within states may be related to changes in
state policies. Ironically, this response has occurred concurrent with state efforts to create
state systems of support for school improvement as required by NCLB.
We also addressed the question of whether more state initiatives to provide
support and training for principals and other administrators might affect assessments of
state policy. In order to accomplish this, the state policy interviews were examined, and
an additional search of state websites was carried out to look for evidence that policy
initiatives related to leadership development, support or changing conditions of
employment were translated into persisting practices. The results of this analysis (see
Table 3.2.1 in previous section)) indicate that Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and
Texas have, over at least 15 years, provided significant initiatives in continuing
professional education and support for principals, either through centralized state
principal academies or through regional service agencies. Nebraska, New Mexico, New
Jersey, New York, and Oregon provide some state-initiated development, but it has been
limited or not comprehensive.300 A cursory examination of the principal ratings and the
300
This study did not investigate the state effects of Wallace Foundation funding of leadership projects.
New Mexico, New Jersey, and Oregon all received State Action for Educational Leadership grants from the
253
state initiatives (Table 3.3.4) suggests that state leadership development initiatives (or
lack thereof) do not necessarily translate into principal attitudes toward the state.
In addition to examining overall responses to these items, we looked at whether
principals‘ assessments of state policy were associated with their own behavior. To do so
we carried out two regression analyses. In the first we looked only at the association of
the Positive State Policy Index and teachers‘ ratings of the principal‘s instructional
leadership, controlling for two key school characteristics (building level, coded as
elementary or secondary; and the percentage of students in poverty, or eligible for free
and reduced-price lunch). We then added the variable measuring the district‘s focus on
accountability in order to determine the relative importance of state and district policy
priorities at the school level. The results of these regressions, presented in Table 3.3.4,
reveal two key findings:


The first regression shows that principals‘ positive perceptions of state policy are
significantly associated with teachers‘ ratings of principals‘ instructional leadership
behavior. In other words, state policy is felt at the school level.
The second regression suggests that district policies moderate the state-house-toschool-house connection. This regression shows that the association between state
policy and principals‘ instructional behavior is reduced to insignificant when the
additional variable of the districts‘ own standards and accountability focus is
introduced.
Wallace Foundation, and evidence of SAELP activity could be found on state websites. Limited evidence
of persistent state-wide activity and no legislative activity were found. In New York, which also received
Wallace Foundation grants, the New York City leadership academy is still functioning, and there is a recent
state-wide initiative to improve pre-service preparation for school leaders.
254
TABLE 3.3.4
Positive State Policy Index and the Principal as Instructional Leader
(N = 201)
Predictors
1
(Constant)
Positive State Policy Index
Building Level
Poverty
Beta
Coefficients
t
.124
.69
.162
-.306
.330
1.69
-4.98
5.30
F = 28.671
2
(Constant)
Positive State Policy Index
Building Level
Poverty
District Accountability Focus
Sig.
.075
-.306
.333
.121
F = 21.464
.179
.075
-4.68
5.30
1.89
Adjd R²
.30
.29
.30
.29
.008
.000
.000
<.001
.119
R²
.252
.000
.000
.060
<.001
Building Level = Elementary or secondary dummy coded
Poverty = Percent free and/or reduced-price lunch
Overall, these findings support the case-based findings of Spillane and others
which suggest that that the district‘s role in moderating state policy is important. They
also suggest an interpretation that will be explored in more detail as we examine our case
data—namely, that unless the district is able to build on state policy to augment the local
agenda, the effects of state policies at the school level will be minimal. In addition,
findings here suggest that the link between state policy and principals‘ instructional
behavior is rather loose, owing to the moderating effects of district policies and practices.
District Assessments of and Reactions to State Policy: An Examination of Cases
While our analysis of principal survey data suggests a loose-linkage explanation
for the relationship between state leadership and building-level leadership, it also
indicates the need to explore the role of districts as moderators of state-leadership effects.
We selected districts of varying size for analysis, but focus on the small and medium
sized districts in this section. Small and medium-sized districts tend to have limited
resources; they often must rely on partners in order to achieve their improvement goals.
Larger districts often have curriculum, testing, and professional development offices that
may exceed those available in state agencies. In addition, larger-sized districts are,
according to most observers, powerful actors in the education policy system; they
sometimes drive state action rather than simply responding to it. Smaller districts may
have only a few schools with similar characteristics, and can therefore more easily apply
state policy in uniform ways. Larger districts, in contrast, often contain schools with very
255
disparate populations, and may therefore adopt non-uniform policies to stimulate
standards and accountability.301
Although our findings are based on the analysis of all of seven small and medium
sized districts in our sample, we will illustrate the findings using examples from two
smaller districts (with six or fewer schools) in Texas and Missouri, and two mediumsized districts in North Carolina and New Jersey.
Table 3.3.5
Characteristics of a Sample of Smaller and Medium-sized Districts
School
# of
Population Schools
Tortuga
Shoals
TX
Middle
Region
District
(MO)
Danhill
Regional
District
(NJ)
North
White
Pine Cty
(NC)
1,653
2,349
16,000
23,000
36
Setting
Demographic
Distributions
(% minority,
% FRP)
District
Scores in
Language
Exam *
ES - Similar
MS - Below
HS - Above
District
Scores on
Math
Exam*
ES - Below
MS - Below
HS - Below
ES - Below
MS - Below
HS - Below
4
Small town
87.13%
88.39%
8
Small
suburb of
medium-size
city
72.9%
62.4%
ES - Below
MS - Below
HS - Below
18
Four small
towns
/surrounding
area
12.7%
13.0%
ES - Above
MS - Above
HS - Similar
Large
military base
located in
county
36.2%
41.0%
ES - Below
MS - Above
HS - Below
ES - Similar
MS Similar
HS Similar
ES - Similar
MS Similar
HS Similar
*Comparison of districts scores to state overall scores in 2005.
In our interpretation, we also draw on analyses of additional small, medium, and
large districts located in the same states. The states that we highlight in this section have
different traditions in terms of educational and political cultures, as defined above:302

301
302
Texas and North Carolina: Both exhibit ―traditional‖ political cultures characterized
by elite influence, strong state efforts to direct schools, and evolving accountability
policies that have persisted over a long period of time. North Carolina was among the
Elmore & Burney (1998).
Evidence to support these categorizations has been presented elsewhere; see Louis et al. (2005, 2008).
256
states with the most positive principal assessments of state policy; Texas was average
in 2005, with unreliable data in 2008.

Missouri and New Jersey: Both states have highly ―individualistic‖ political cultures
characterized by many competing interest groups, lobbying, and modest state efforts
to create coherence. Missouri is a relative late-comer to state testing, but it has a
longer history of general state standards. New Jersey, although a bit earlier to
establish state tests, has focused its quality initiatives on a small group of lowperforming (―Abbott‖) districts. Missouri‘s principal ratings were positive in 2005
and 2008, while New Jersey‘s ratings went from average (2005) to well below
average (2008).
Case Studies: How State Policy Affects Small-District Leadership
(all district and persons’ names are pseudonyms)
Tortuga Shoals School District (Texas)
Situated on the south Texas coast, Tortuga Shoals is largely a Hispanic
community with a mix of long-time residents and more recent immigrants. Major sources
of employment are the service industry for hotels and restaurants (tourism is a
burgeoning sector), and shrimping (on the downturn). Tortuga Shoals has clearly
delineated higher- and lower- income residential areas, including some subsidizedhousing apartments. The school superintendent, Dr. Alba Cruz, was quite familiar with
the district when she arrived in July 2003; she had served as a principal in the district
before moving to a district-level position elsewhere. Additional district personnel
included a new Assistant Superintendent, a business officer, federal/state program
officers, and an Instructional Facilitator in the Curriculum and Instruction unit. Three of
four principals were new to their positions (in their first or second years).
The superintendent‘s top priority has been to improve student learning as assessed
by local indicators (course failure and high-school graduation rates) and by results from
state testing. Additional priorities included developing vocational programs aligned with
local employment opportunities, and addressing social issues related to student retention,
such as teen pregnancy and low aspirations for post-secondary education.
Perceptions of policy hierarchy. Dr. Cruz emphasized that more authentic
compliance with state and local policies was essential to achieving local improvement
priorities. This view was not universally shared among school personnel, who pointed to
a track record of good results on the old state test and rankings, where Tortuga Shoals
was always in the top 10 percent of the districts in the region.303 To legitimate these
directions for improvement, the superintendent commissioned a curriculum audit by
outside consultants, with the expectation that results from this audit would provide
direction and legitimacy to a new plan for improving teaching and learning in the district.
303
The state adopted a more rigorous curriculum and testing program in 2001.
257
In the past, the district had taken a decentralized approach to policy
implementation. Program units at the district level managed their policy portfolios
relatively independently, and responsibility for implementation was delegated to schools.
The orientation to state policy was characterized by district compliance with bureaucratic
requirements and trust in school personnel to ensure positive results. As student test
results began to slip under the new state requirements and more stringent NCLB criteria,
the percentage of students not meeting minimum standards increased (but performance
also slipped at other schools in the region: Tortuga Shoals schools remained relatively
high performing). The new superintendent began to challenge the local culture of formal
compliance and decentralization. Dr. Cruz and her assistant saw a need for a more
authentic and coherent approach to state policy expectations for curriculum and teaching:
My philosophy is, you teach the text. With a state curriculum, you teach it
with the intent of how it was supposed to be taught, which is the depth and
complexity of each objective, and everything else is going to fall into
place. And what I‘m saying is: "No. You teach the [curriculum] the way
you‘re supposed to, and [tests] will be taken care of."
The district capacity for reform was affected by state funding policies, which
redistribute tax revenues from high property-tax districts like Tortuga Shoals (with its
strong tourist industry) to low-wealth districts. While local officials decried the loss of
revenue, the district received significant supplementary funding because of the high
poverty levels among its student population. State funding cuts resulted, however, in the
loss of one of two Instructional Facilitator positions. The district, by necessity, had to rely
on principals‘ instructional leadership and on expertise from the regional education center
or independent consultants to support school- and district-wide improvement initiatives.
Networks. District and school personnel reported little direct contact with the
Texas state education department, but relied on the state-supported regional education
service center (RESC) as a key source of information about state policies and as a
provider of professional development services. The RESC‘s professional development
offerings focused largely on state initiatives (such as improving Gifted and Talented
programs and classroom technology use) that were not always linked to local priorities.
Education service center staff also provided technical support for analysis of performance
data.
[Leaders in the state education department] are not influential. They give
you a menu, and say, here, this is what you need to do. The region is very
different. We have a great regional service center. Always looking for
ways to improve the region, all schools in the region….They have great
staff development…. The majority of the time they‘re trying to do what‘s
good for kids and for the school districts.
Dr. Cruz and the Assistant Superintendent valued and participated regularly in
district- administrator meetings organized by the education service center, and she
reported that these were important to her:
258
Even at the superintendent level, when I have my superintendency
meetings at the region, they‘re very helpful. I mean, they literally come
with data where they‘ve already analyzed a lot of the data within our
school district. They‘re better equipped…. They have more personnel to
be able to do a lot of the studies for us. So that‘s real helpful.
Neither Dr. Cruz nor the Assistant Superintendent identified other organized
networks of professional influence and support, but they talked about communication
with close colleagues from neighboring districts and about attending annual meetings of
state professional associations. The district was not involved in university partnerships
focused on local improvement efforts.
The year prior to Dr. Cruz‘s appointment, the district entered into a multi-year
contract with a commercial mathematics program developer, but it terminated the
contract for materials and professional development after several years, at the point of
renewal, because of the cost, concerns among the elementary schools regarding the
program‘s effectiveness, and the program‘s weak program fit with a state mathematics
textbook adoption. School principals independently continued to use external consultants
related to their own priorities for improvement. An elementary principal, for example,
arranged for in-service training inputs on reading strategies for her teachers, while the
junior high principal recruited external in-service expertise to support her vision for more
constructivist forms of pedagogy.
The superintendent was also responsive to input from local community groups,
such as the Tortuga Shoals Education Foundation. The Foundation was created by
stakeholders associated with the tourism industry; it was a key source motivating the
superintendent‘s interest in expanding high school vocational programs.
Dr. Cruz and her district colleagues did not portray themselves as influential
participants in the state policy-making process. Rather, they emphasized their
responsibility for ensuring effective implementation of state and federal policy, in
contrast to the laissez-faire approach to implementation during the prior administration.
Loose coupling. ―Loosely coupled‖ certainly describes the district prior to Dr.
Cruz‘s arrival. A district-improvement plan existed on paper, but it was not an operative
document guiding district improvement efforts. While there were programmatic
initiatives underway (the elementary mathematics program, a federally-sponsored
program intended to motivate high school students to pursue post-secondary studies, and
a government-funded after- school program to provide positive alternatives for teen
social behavior), there was no overall consensus on needs, goals, and a strategy for
improvement. The district‘s initial response to the new state curriculum and tests, and to
the decline in student test-score results, was mainly to call for principals to organize
school-based curriculum-writing projects, which were carried out with little district
guidance or input.
259
During her first year as superintendent, Dr. Cruz identified directions for
improvement in student learning. She was disturbed and puzzled by the fact that students‘
course-failure rates (which principals were required to report every six weeks) were
unacceptably high (e.g., 29% at the high school level) despite the history of formally
satisfactory student results on state tests and school accountability ratings:
There were too many students failing, and I didn‘t know whether it was
because of apathy on their part, or because . . . the previous levels were
not teaching the prerequisites that needed to be taught for the following
grade level. So that‘s what sparked the whole thing up, thinking, wait a
minute, we do great things individually, but yet, why do we have the
failure rate that we have? There‘s got to be a reason for that. So I felt that
a good, thorough investigation would give me some answers.
The discrepancy between local and state assessments of student learning fueled
Dr. Cruz‘s growing belief that the state test-score results were an inadequate indicator of
the quality of student learning. She strongly suspected that teachers were not challenging
students to the cognitive level of the new curriculum, and that too much effort was being
devoted to test preparation. Dr. Cruz took the position that a major obstacle to further
improvement in student performance was a weakness in vertical curriculum coordination
and coherence, in K-12 schools across the district:
We have four great principals, and I think that‘s a real big asset to this
school district. They‘re all instructionally focused, and they‘re hard
workers, they‘re dedicated. However, I was not convinced that we were
implementing curriculum pre-K to 12. Each school is doing great things
within their school, but I didn‘t see that continuity from pre-K all the way
through the 12th grade.
Dr. Cruz and her assistant realized that without additional evidence, district and
school personnel would be unlikely to support these views. Accordingly, she asked the
school board to fund a curriculum audit lead by well-regarded external experts in this
process.
Dr. Cruz also took steps in her first year to begin to break down the organizational
culture of autonomous schools and autonomous units, noting: ―When I walked into this
district again, it was very fragmented. So since day one I have been working on building
a culture of togetherness.‖ Her emphasis on teamwork across schools and organizational
units was a key element of her strategic agenda to develop greater consensus and
coordination focused on directions for improvement and alignment with state and local
goals.
Summary. Dr. Cruz‘s approach to change and improvement in student
performance across the district embraced state policy expectations for curriculum,
teaching, and learning. Dr. Cruz believed the path to improvement in student learning
would require strengthening compliance with new state-level expectations, better vertical
260
alignment of curriculum across the schools, and more effective collaboration within the
district. She did not, however, go beyond the state standards or collect additional data.
She focused on leveraging understanding and compliance with state initiatives and on
using the state‘s priorities to stimulate change at the school level. Both Cruz and others
on her team were actively collecting and looking at state and local performance
indicators, but they lacked the capacity to gather or use information that would to help
them interpret those indicators, which limited their ability to explain performance
problems (other than by reference to curriculum alignment).
Middle Region School District (Missouri)
Middle Region is a small suburban district located in a major metropolitan area.
Over the last 15 years the demographic character and academic rigor of the district has
changed. What had been a largely white and affluent population became predominantly
non-white, with more than half of the students in the district receiving free and reducedprice lunches. Along with changing demographics of the student population, academic
performance within the district gradually worsened. Contributing factors, as explained by
district staff, were teachers working in isolation and low expectations for the newer
students. The school board had growing concerns about the need for change throughout
the district.
A new superintendent, Dr. Ken Leslie, was hired in 2001. His task was to turn the
district around. Dr. Leslie‘s first priority was to change the prevailing culture of low
expectations among educators in the district; his second was to improve student
achievement through increased rigor, alignment of state standards to classroom practices,
and implementation of mathematics standards higher than those set by the state. The
district‘s strategy for achieving these priorities involved replacing principals, creating a
more rigorous curriculum aligned with state standards, and providing external support to
schools to assess progress. The underlying assumption of Middle Region District is that
local accountability and standards are critical to ensure academic gains among students,
meeting or exceeding state standards.
Perceptions of policy hierarchy. The relationship between Middle Region District
and the state changed dramatically in recent years. Prior to Superintendent Leslie‘s
arrival, state authority was held in low regard by Middle Region educators. They ignored
state standards and curriculum or implemented them poorly. They apparently thought it
more important to ensure that students would feel validated and supported than that they
would perform well academically, and this view effectively displaced high expectations
for achievement in many classrooms. With the current superintendent, this changed.
The district is now more attuned to state policies and guidelines, and it
implements them appropriately, according to teachers and administrators. The
superintendent explains that the turnaround began with a sense of urgency:
We looked at all the data, particularly at the high school, and we looked at
it at the middle and elementary schools as well. My challenge to the staff
was that we don‘t have time to make any major mid-course adjustments.
261
We‘ve got to come up with a game plan and we‘ve got to be willing to
stick with that game plan through the year. Otherwise, we are not going to
make a sufficient.. . difference to make sure that we are fully accredited….
So we were aggressive. Our plan generally was that we didn‘t want any
band-aids. We wanted to make sure that anything that we worked on
would be foundation building as well as show gains the first year we did
it.
Superintendent Leslie focuses clearly on being in step with state directives. The
district actively seeks and expands upon state direction for curriculum, standards, and
assessment planning to establish a baseline for professional practice and student
achievement. It also actively seeks support from the state.
In this small district, the superintendent‘s vision determines how others see the
state, because there are few layers between him and the teachers. The district office
frames local goals for student achievement in terms of student performance relative to
national as well as to state curriculum and learning standards. District goals for
elementary students emphasize grade-level readiness; in the middle and high school
grades, goals emphasize increasing rigor in mathematics. Overall, goals and initiatives
are targeted to student learning gaps by income level and race, challenges unique to grade
levels, and transitions into higher grades. The district utilizes data-driven decision
making to determine priorities for curriculum and standards alignment.
The district went beyond the state‘s requirements. It achieved policy coherence by
aligning state standards with district initiatives. State standards were recently revised in
Missouri to establish grade-level expectations. Effectively, the district reformed its
curriculum and assessment program to reflect policy changes of this sort, while keeping
to the goal of setting standards that are higher. As Dr. Leslie noted:
Yeah, I‘m satisfied that [state] assessment is stringent. I worried out loud a
little bit that when they re-did the performance [measurement] that we
were moving the standard down a little bit, because I would rather have a
standard that is tough and just a little bit out of reach without great effort
than to make it easier for me to get there as a superintendent. I know I‘m
kind of a renegade among my colleagues, but they put up with me, I guess.
The new emphasis on increased rigor in mathematics was so strong that the district
shifted toward pre-algebra instruction in the elementary grades to better prepare students
for eighth-grade algebra.
Achieving transparency in district goals has been accompanied by efforts to
increase capacity for district reform. Through the leadership of the superintendent, the
district replaced most principals in the district, with the intention of establishing a new
culture of leadership focused on academic rigor and students‘ capacity to learn. The
superintendent explains that students need principals who have high expectations and
262
track records of having turned schools around, and that they need teachers who will
emphasize learning, not merely trying to make students feel better.
Networks. Because Dr. Leslie formerly held an influential role with the state, his
expanded set of relationships includes people in the state department of education, district
superintendents, and other educators. Given his former role and reputation, he is able to
influence state forums and continues to engage in policy discussions with state actors. He
is vocal about his concerns regarding limitations of state policy, and he pushes for the
inclusion of academic principles that support the vision and goals of Middle Region
District. The superintendent also communicates with other district superintendents for
fresh ideas for growth. However, his background appears to be the most important source
of his influence on district priorities, because it enables him to maintain close ties with
and access to state department staff.
Although external networks are an important factor in the district, the
superintendent places a greater emphasis on internal district networks. One important
network is the one he maintains with school principals; he sees principals as leaders of a
school culture that supports district goals and state policies. He has, therefore, established
bi-weekly principal meetings, and requires principals to attend school board meetings:
Administrators are required to come to board meetings so that they can
understand the interactions and they can feel and see what the board
members are thinking, doing and saying. That is something that I learned
in my years at the state. The more you get a sense of where the board is
coming from … the easier it is . . . to make the kind of adjustments [that
we need]…. When we‘ve got a lot of people in the room, looking,
watching, there is a greater understanding…. Then they kind of have a feel
for why I‘m saying we have to adjust here.
The emphasis on network interactions within and outside the district is not based
on a goal of state policy coherence. Rather, it is based on the superintendent‘s thorough
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of state curriculum standards, and his
efforts to move Middle Region District forward in improving its local priorities through a
collaborative and cohesive approach, thus moving the district ahead of others in the area.
Loose coupling. The previous superintendent‘s administration emphasized loose
coupling with state policy initiatives, which were viewed as marginally relevant to the
district‘s changing demographic profile. The current superintendent helped to develop a
common agenda for moving the district forward, including increasing expectations for
student success, academic rigor, reporting, professional development, and alignment to
state and national standards and assessment programs. To address his concerns about
weak attention to academic learning in the early grades, the district revamped the
curriculum and developed new report cards linked to state standards that addressed
ambiguity in reporting student progress. This change has decreased the former practice of
giving passing grades to students who did not earn the grade, and has contributed to an
increase in proficiency attainment.
263
The district has also established more rigorous expectations for teachers and
principals regarding their pedagogy and the expectations they hold for students, and
developed (with external consultation) has developed a tool to help teachers align
curriculum with the new grade-level expectations as well as state and national standards,
assessments, suggested teaching strategies, and resources. The superintendent explained
the importance of these changes:
We have got good teachers that are cutting edge and are energetic and you
don‘t worry about them too much. We have good teachers who need to
make some adjustments in their strategies and we try to work on those….
We try to provide opportunities for them to learn. I think leadership has to
be strong, it has to be focused and it has to be driven by vision, but the
people who make it happen are the teachers in the classroom. So a good
deal of energy and resources need to be focused on helping teachers, good
teachers, become better.
Summary. In this case (as in Tortuga Shoals), the coupling of district and state
initiatives largely depended on district leadership. Both Cruz and Leslie identified the
need to change local culture and to achieve more effective alignment with state standards
for classroom practice. However, Leslie, located in an individualistic state-policy context,
felt free to establish local standards that exceeded state standards, while Cruz, in a more
traditional ―top down‖ state, still operated with a compliance orientation. Most notably,
the commitment and actions of Superintendent Leslie to align district efforts to state
curriculum standards determined how state policies were ―felt‖ within schools. His
efforts encouraged the district and schools to examine local data rather than relying only
on what the state provided. As the district coupled its efforts more closely with state and
national standards, student learning improved and school board support for the district
increased.
Case Studies: How State Policy Affects Leadership in Medium-Sized Districts
(all district and person’s names are pseudonyms)
Danhill Regional School District (New Jersey)
Danhill is located in a quiet corner of New Jersey. Like much of the state, it is
undergoing rapid development. Until recently it was known as a farming community,
with some workers employed in the tourism industry. It has since become an attractive
area for retirees, in part because it is proximate to larger cities. Although the district is
medium-sized in student population, it is quite spread out, and its schools have by and
large retained their small-town identity.
Danhill‘s economy is increasingly dependent on ―outsiders.‖ The superintendent
estimates that about 50% of Danhill‘s young families today are newcomers. Because the
district covers a relatively large area, there is considerable diversity among the schools.
Some elementary schools, for example, are affluent and almost exclusively white, while
others have higher levels of poverty and minority enrollment.
264
Overall, Danhill students perform well on state assessments, but several of the
schools have not met AYP targets for several years running. Nevertheless, the district has
a strong reputation within the state, and it continues to attract support from local
residents—in part because it has worked to maintain the viability of small, decentralized
schools that are responsive the communities they serve. Contributing to the small-town
feel of the schools is a pattern of stability among professional educators and
administrators. Most of them grew up in Danhill; almost all educators working in the
district office have been in the district for 25 years or more.
Perceptions of policy hierarchy. In Danhill, administrators clearly accept the
state‘s role in setting curriculum standards and accountability. At the same time, a sense
that the state is an adversary runs through district conversations about policy and change.
As one associate superintendent put it, ―So much of what we see on a daily basis is so
punitive. I don‘t think that is going to change…. I think that the nature of government is
just what we have in New Jersey.‖ This educator and others see the state as a remote
entity in which the realities of student learning are not understood:
I don‘t think that some of the people that make the rules and regulations
really truly understand what‘s going on. You know the whole No Child
Left Behind workbook that they provided, and then the end number that
has caused so many of our schools to be considered failing schools when
indeed they‘re not, that‘s one example...
This associate superintendent noted, however, that the issue is not with No Child Left
Behind per se, but with New Jersey‘s interpretation of the law. Danhill has a number of
small elementary schools (under 400 students) in which a few seriously underperforming
students (who might be, for example, special-needs and second-language learners and
from poor families) could make a big difference. All top administrators expressed
concern about New Jersey‘s policies on subgroup achievement scores. As one
administrator noted about an affected school:
Truthfully I don‘t know what more they can do. We‘ve added technology,
we‘ve added professional development. More parental involvement. The
teachers are involved in the process. When you have a handful of students
who are in subgroups who do not pass the test you are immediately
considered a failing school. I think they‘ve done everything they possibly
can to improve their instruction to help children do the best they can.
Another concern had to do with constantly changing expectations related to
student testing, coupled with relatively weak communication. Administrators and
teachers were concerned, for example, because they did not know when the state‘s high
school proficiency test would begin testing for content taught in Algebra II, and what
would happen to students who didn‘t pass the test. As an associate superintendent noted,
―They are moving … and they are not giving us enough answers. Maybe in their own
wisdom they know what they are doing, but … we haven‘t been able to get an answer.‖
265
On the other hand, the district has very good relations with the regional office of the state
department, which district officials regard as very responsive and helpful.
District administrators distinguish between state policy and implementation, on
the one hand, and, on the other, the overall policy goals of accountability, which they see
as a stimulus to innovation and improvement:
I think sometimes the restrictions are a bit misguided...but …it‘s caused us
to realign and rethink how we provide remediation. … We‘ve gone away
from even thinking of it as remediation and think of it as extra help and
preparation. We‘ve devised ways to use some of our money for ... in-class
support models...meeting the needs of those students who we identify and
recognize as kids that need more. It‘s caused us to obviously communicate
more with parents….
Many of the curricular innovations being implemented in the district were chosen
specifically because they appear to work well for children who may need extra help and
stimulation.
The issue of greatest concern to the district, however, is not communication or the
general goal of accountability; it is the state‘s funding equalization policies. District
educators believe these policies have left them in difficult circumstances:
If you are not an urban district in the State of New Jersey, you are not
going to be getting a lot of money. Those urban districts are taking 80% of
the [state allocation for] district funding. There is eight billion dollars
spent in New Jersey public education—80% of [the] eight billion dollars
goes to 29 school districts.
Networks. Danhill sees itself as a willing partner with other districts (the
administrator with responsibility for technology talked about the networking that goes on
with others in similar positions), with regional institutions of higher education, and with
the Educational Testing Service, located in Princeton, New Jersey. Students are
encouraged to take courses at a local community college. More importantly, although
Danhill is a mid-sized district, it has significant capacities that many smaller districts
lack. Thus, when Danhill administrators think about networks, they are more likely to
consider how they provide assistance and resources to others than about their role as a
recipient of assistance:
... one of the advantages of being big is that companies pay attention and
give us an opportunity [to do workshops using their materials]. And what
we‘ve done, even with partner districts, is actually we invite our peripheral
districts in…. In other words, we include them as if they are another one
of our elementary schools.
266
In contrast, internal networking is very important. The superintendents meet with
all of the district‘s administrators at least once every two weeks, and they have many
informal meetings on-site as well. Internal networking, including informal meetings with
subcommittees of the school board, is what keeps new ideas circulating and under
discussion before any decision is taken. As one administrator noted, the strategy is to
create consensus through discussion: ―It‘s really kind of a top down, but the top isn‘t one
person; the top is . . . an approach by a group of administrators.‖ In addition, the
superintendent focuses on networking within the communities served, making sure that
he has an eye on what might create support for innovation and new policies:
I am really a firm believer in reaching out into the community. The parent
input and the community input is so necessary…. I want the brutal truth
from them. You need to hear the good and the bad as well as what are we
doing right and what are we doing wrong? How can we help? … We‘ve
had a lot of interesting conversations with the business sector of the
community. We‘ve connected the business sector with education.
In general, administrators in the district appeared to be disconnected from state
policy making and initiatives. One administrator noted, for example, that the New Jersey
teachers‘ association has a great deal of influence over policy, and that the
administrators‘ association has somewhat less. No one, however, talked about working
through associations or other groups to change the aspects of state policy that seemed
most onerous.
Loose coupling. The district‘s response to financial and accountability pressures,
and weak support from the state, has been to become more entrepreneurial. In the past
few years, the district has had to cut several administrative positions and re-organized job
responsibilities. On the whole, those who are retained in the district office feel that it is
working reasonably well, noting that ―[The superintendent] is very good at reorganization
and sometimes that means doing more with less people… fortunately the structure is very
good….‖
Perhaps more distinctive is the development of new revenue streams to
compensate for the state‘s emphasis on finance equalization for poor districts. A few
years ago, the superintendent noted that the district was paying a great deal of money to
rent the building in which the district office was located. He suggested buying it, and
turning the unused space into services for the community:
Everything that we do is geared from a business model. . . . , so we‘re
doing unique things with the [building] in terms of trying to generate
revenue… We now generate $40,000 a month revenue and probably two
to three cents to the tax payer every year because of its worth and we now
have our offices and don‘t pay rent so the give back there is bigger than
that. So that was a business plan.
267
The services provided by the district include a cafeteria that is open to the public, a copy
and publications center, technology support, and space rental.
In its approach to innovation, the district focuses on supporting continual
improvement rather than visible reforms—reforms that the state promotes or those that
are popular in professional circles. In addition to the plan for generating revenue, the
district increased its capacity for promoting innovation and professional development
among teachers, while reducing administrative costs, by implementing a supervisor
position at the building level. Because supervisors are classified as administrators, they
can serve as instructional coaches and evaluators.
In all cases, the district prided itself on going beyond what state policy requires.
One example is teacher induction, which involved professional development services
tailored to individuals (based on initial assessments), in addition to the state‘s mandate
for a mentor. The idea for the program came from a visit that a Danhill administrator
made to a district in New York. Local efforts to create a more rigorous high school
curriculum were stimulated by internal analysis and by resources acquired from a
National Science Foundation project that involved two universities. Administrators have
made it clear that their efforts predated the state‘s efforts to increase graduation
requirements.
Summary. Danhill emphasizes adapting external resources (curriculum, software,
etc.) to local needs, and creating local support for district-improvement actions. For the
most part, this approach has been successful. Administrators and teachers have paid little
attention to the state‘s mandates, with the exception of meeting testing requirements.
While district officials complain that New Jersey‘s interpretation of the No Child Left
Behind Act makes little sense in the small schools in their district—unfairly penalizing
schools with a few students who are struggling—they have not done much by way of
response. Instead, they hew to the course that has been their consistent strategy for more
than a decade: to develop support and increase the flow of revenue within the district, and
to make gradual changes that can be adapted to the various constituencies served by the
schools. While the state is a player in Danhill‘s arena, it is a relatively unimportant
influence compared to the influence of local goals and efforts.
North White Pine County (North Carolina)
North White Pine County School System has 36 schools and approximately
23,000 students. The district experiences high student and teacher mobility because it is
located near a military base. District-level leadership, on the other hand, has been stable
compared to other districts in the state. Superintendent Samuelson served for 16 years in
the district, and the superintendent before him served for 19 years. The district staff has
therefore been able to work through issues and challenges in a systematic way, especially
with the board of education and county commissioners. During the last year of our study,
Samuelson, and three other district level leaders, retired, and a new superintendent, Sheila
Wauters, took over. The transition was smooth because all of the new district-level
administrators were brought up through the ranks in the North White Pine County system
and were well known and liked. One large challenge for the district has been meeting the
268
Highly Qualified Teacher rule. Due to state teacher shortages, high rates of family
mobility, and a growing community, North White Pine regularly hires between 300 and
350 new teachers every year.
Perceptions of policy hierarchy. At the district level, policies and initiatives have
always been piloted by schools on a focused and invitational basis before they have been
adopted system-wide. The motto has been to start new initiatives and reforms slowly
before fast-tracking them into the system. Superintendent Samuelson said: ―Rather than
racing in and then you have to back up and race out again, we have tried to fine-tune and
refine what we are working on so that as someone sees the value of that and buys into it,
it is already a product that fits us and fits our needs.‖
Because the district has preferred to take things slowly, it has had problems with
state-mandated policies that must be implemented all at once. District officials described
the state as largely driven by the preferences of the governor. For example, during
Superintendent Samuelson‘s tenure, the governor made early pre-school education a top
priority and mandated that all districts either create their own early pre-school programs
or align themselves with community agencies providing those services in the state. The
governor formed a political partnership with community agencies like Head Start, but
offered no additional resources.
The reaction of the district was mixed. The superintendent said, ―Certainly we all
understand the value of kids coming to school ready to learn and having skill sets that
they can do that. But that has been forced on us without any additional facilities, without
additional teachers.‖ In addition to the pre-school initiative, the governor mandated a
program called ―More at Four‖ and instituted a rule that class sizes be reduced. However,
neither the governor nor the state provided any additional space or dollars for hiring new
teachers. Superintendent Samuelson pointed to the consequence of within-state
competition for the scarce resource of teachers, for funds, and for additional space.
District administrators note that their legislative delegates at the state level listen to them,
but that the governor is able to create other alliances that support his priorities. For
example, all of the school districts wanted to maintain local control and site-based
decision making on several issues, (control over the school calendar) but the governor
and legislature responded to the tourist industry‘s preference for starting the school year
after Labor Day. In another example, Superintendent Samuelson fought with limited
success against state timelines for meeting NCLB teacher-qualification requirements.
Superintendent Wauters reported that while the district retained control over
aspects of school operations, the state has mandated many new programs and curricular
initiatives. For example, the 2006 ―21st Century Skills‖ initiative sought to ensure that
students would be globally competitive, that teachers would be up-to-date
technologically, and that school and district leadership would foster instructional
innovations. Although district administrators supported this initiative, they pointed out
that the state had not provided an appropriate level of resources or guidance to implement
it. The superintendent told her staff, ―If this is the direction that the state is going to
269
pursue, then ...we are supposed to align ourselves with what the state has put out. So I
think we need to have this conversation, which we did.‖
Superintendent Wauters said that even though the state has been influential,
people at the State Department and the Department of Public Instruction were
―floundering‖ because they were unable to help districts to move forward with the new
focus. In response, Wauters used the ―opportunity‖ provided by the state framework to
stretch her staff, asking teachers to consider questions like: ―When the state comes out
and says we are going to prepare students to be globally competitive, what does that
mean? What does that mean to you in the classroom and what does that mean to our
school system in terms of what we need to be doing?‖ She partnered with community
members and engaged with university and community college partners in the process.
She said, ―We‘ve pulled all those people in and said, 'Look, this is what the state is telling
us. We know we don‘t do it in isolation. How do we do it together?'‖
The assistant superintendent reported that the district tries to connect with the
state department of education, but because of cuts at the state level, capacity has been an
issue. She stated:
We don‘t get as much from the state DPI as we would like, but the ones who are
there are as close as the phone, so I don‘t want to put anybody down. I know that
people in the Division of Personnel and Licensure know us personally, we call
them, they are there or they retrieve the call from wherever they are and give us a
call. We just wish they had more numbers.
Networks. Networking with community groups and partnering with other county
personnel has been a necessity in North White Pine County because the County has been
classified as a ―low-wealth‖ district, because the central office has been understaffed, and
because there have been teacher shortages. However, the stability of district-level
leadership has helped the district make vital connections with community groups and
other county staff. Superintendent Samuelson often worked with the county manager,
even though most of their discussions had to be by telephone because of travel and
budget restrictions. During Samuelson‘s tenure, the district networked and partnered
often with local universities, and community college faculty members and staff, to
provide teacher training. For example, the district partnered with mathematics and
science professors to create a program to improve teachers‘ mathematics knowledge and
skills. Getting new teachers up to speed on the state‘s accountability policies has been an
on-going challenge. The district does most of its own professional development; it has
tried to provide mentors to all teachers, and to provide pre-service and in-service teacher
training, but it has had to scramble to partner with the local university and community
colleges to make sure that teaching assistants got certified.
Superintendent Wauters has networked even more than the previous
superintendent. For example, she became involved with the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools and served as the state specialist in the area of district accreditation.
North White Pine County was the first district in the state to go through the accreditation
270
process. Wauters also has served on various state-level boards and on university and
community college boards and committees, and has been engaged with the economic
development group in the community.
Loose coupling. Even though the district struggles with high mobility rates, its
students have performed well academically. The district‘s scores are higher than regional
and state averages. Several district schools attained 90% or higher proficiency rates on
state tests; all were above 80%. Still, the district has faced a challenge in efforts to meet
federal conditions for continued academic growth especially because the district has close
to 2,800 students who have been classified as Exceptional Children (EC).
Both the former and current superintendent see their district as active participants
in state-wide conversations about educational policy. Rather than detaching from or
merely arguing against state accountability policies, Superintendent Wauters met with
state leaders to talk about the importance of having state assessments and accountability
measures aligned with the new state focus. She reported that many local districts have
banded together to lobby at the state level to align these systems, and are developing
grassroots approaches to fostering more conversation. She explained:
So we‘ve started having that conversation with the state. So now they are
in the process of looking at 27 recommendations from the superintendents
and schools about things that they need to begin. Those are just the
beginning steps to what they need to do to adapt the accountability model
in the State of North Carolina...So we‘ve shared that voice. What we‘ve
done locally is go out. I have gone out and talked with school leaders,
teachers, community, and I have said that multiple-choice testing, what
you all need to understand is that is only one form of assessment. It is the
one form of assessment that the state and federal government currently tell
us we must use.
Because of these efforts, the state has begun to align its 21st Century Skills focus with
assessment and accountability measures. The state has also been in the process of
implementing a similarly aligned teacher-evaluation instrument.
Summary. North White Pine County district has experienced problems meeting
some NCLB mandates because a high percentage of its students and teachers come from
military families, who are highly mobile. This is the district‘s major problem, about
which, it reports, the state does little to help. Because of that, the district partners with
local community colleges and universities as well as other community groups to meet
state and federal requirements. North White Pines County staff members report that they
spend a great deal of time working with their schools and their communities to make
sense out of and shape various mandates to fit their local settings. The district has tried to
hold to its own philosophy by piloting new initiatives and refining them before
implementing them system-wide. Like the other medium-sized district in our sample
(Danhill), North White Pine County tried to influence local public opinion about state
271
policy, although the superintendents (past and current) played a more active role as actors
in the state policy context.
Summary of Findings from the District Leadership Cases
In Table 3.3.6 at the conclusion of this section we present findings from the four
districts, using the framework that we set out earlier. In summarizing our findings, we
draw on these four districts and on our analysis of other districts not described here in
detail.
Debates in the press surrounding the standards and accountability movement often
emphasize the prescriptive nature of emerging state and federal legislation. By
implication, there is a sense that local districts, as well as principals and teachers, are put
in a straightjacket as they struggle to comply with policies that do not always make sense
in their local context. Our analysis casts light on this issue by examining the responses of
district staff members in four small and medium-sized districts. Size matters here, we
assumed, because smaller districts, given their limited resources, may be less able to
move resources around to meet new requirements. State policy environments are also
important, because states have varied widely in how quickly and it what ways they have
reacted to public demands for increased standards.
Hierarchical power: Do states have a systemic effect? Overall, our evidence
suggests that state standards and accountability policies, including state-level
interpretations of NCLB requirements, have a modest impact on local behavior and
planning for the improvement of teaching and learning. This does not mean that schools
or districts generally ignore state policies; it means that, rather than serving as fixed
templates, state policies and requirements are incorporated into what the district
administrators want to do. Some districts complain about a lack of resources and support
for implementation, but in general they agree with the intent of state policies.
While districts vary there is variation in how they react to state standards and
accountability requirements, they rarely describe their situation in ways that would
suggest they feel besieged or victimized by the standards movement, even when they
disagree with specific policies. Three of the four districts we analyzed in detail have high
poverty/high minority populations, yet they all welcomed the standards movement as
helping them to define and achieve important (local) education goals. They described
their relationship with their states in terms that must be categorized as accepting. They
acknowledged the legitimacy of state policy (even if they dislike the notion of federal
mandates and bemoan inadequate state funding), and generally find that they are able to
use policy to enlarge their own influence over the improvement of education in their
settings.
None of the districts described state agencies as a significant source of support,
although three states (Texas, Missouri, and New Jersey) have well-funded regional
service agencies whose role is to support professional development and to enhance the
capacity of district offices. Loose coupling was evident in the actions all four districts
took to develop their agendas for improvement, to which state standards and
272
accountability agendas could be linked. Two districts (Tortuga Shoals and North White
Pine County) described the state‘s role as defining what they were trying to do, but even
in those cases district leaders saw themselves as going beyond superficial compliance.
None, however, reported significant professional guidance or support from state
education departments or regional service units for the implementation of programs
targeted to locally defined needs and goals, even within the scope of state priorities and
initiatives.
There is little evidence to support the assumption that state policies bypass the
district and have a direct impact on the behavior of principals. Although principals‘
assessments of positive state influences predict their instructional leadership behavior,
state effects are overwhelmed by principals‘ perceptions of the role of local standards and
policies.
Networks of local leadership influence. Senior district staff members in small and
medium-sized districts have limited political networks, with the exception of one
individual in our sample who formerly held a key state position. However, both he and
the superintendent in North White Pine County saw themselves as influencing state
policy making, either on their own or through professional associations. The professional
networks established by most of the superintendents in our sample are largely localized
within the district and with other districts located nearby, and they are typically more
focused on coping with state policy mandates than on shaping those policies to begin
with. There is some evidence that superintendents participate in lobbying or making
efforts to influence state policy, but only as participants in coalitions. Overall,
superintendents and other district officials seem to play modest roles in the states‘ policy
activity. State superintendents‘ associations were rarely mentioned as important sources
of influence by superintendents, just as they were rarely seen to be present in the circles
of influence described by state policy makers.
Loose coupling. Senior district staff view their work as loosely coupled with the
state. Districts‘ sense of engagement with policy making and SEAs varies by state policy
culture.

Districts located in more traditional political culture304 states saw themselves as
working toward authentic compliance with state policies. Authentic compliance
implies accepting the requirements of state mandates and expectations, but tailoring
policy to local circumstances. Data from Tortuga Shoals and North White Pine
provide empirical evidence for this conclusion. In both the traditional states,
mandates and limited state support for implementation were assumed, but states
provided the framework within which local policy was worked out. District leaders
leveraged state policy to frame, focus, and mobilize local improvement efforts.

Districts located in states with individualistic political cultures (Danhill and Middle
Region) saw state policies as less central to their improvement agendas, and they
viewed their local work as loosely coupled with state policy making. They also did
304
For definitions of state political cultures, see pp. 217-218 in this report.
273
not seem to be concerned about sanctions. Like the traditional states, they did not see
themselves as reliant on state help; they believed that it was up to the district to
design and implement effective school-improvement policies. They all expressed a
sense of being responsible for designing and implementing their own policy
initiatives (while complying with the details of state policy).

While we have not presented the relevant case data here, two smaller districts located
in states with a clear or moderate moralistic political culture (Oregon and Nebraska)
saw themselves as collaborative partners with the state. In both cases, district
administrators believed there were people in the state agency who could assist them
in finding resources—or perhaps even provide resources, directly or through the
state‘s regional service agencies. They also described ways in which they participated
in opportunities created by the state to shape state improvement policies.
Based on our previous analysis of interviews with state-level policy actors and
stakeholders, we conclude that district actors share many of the same assumptions about
how educational policy and improvement gets done here, and that they adapt their own
responses to the state‘s traditional ways of developing and implementing policy. While
we would not go so far as to say that state policy culture determines how smaller districts
respond, our data suggest that how districts respond to increasingly uniform standards
and assessment policies will be significantly affected by the state‘s political culture. We
hypothesize that in traditional states, small and medium-sized districts are more likely to
see themselves as compliant actors; in individualistic states, they are likely to view
themselves as free to interpret standards in their own ways; and in moralistic states they
are likely to see states as partners in improvement.
But what about larger districts? Our analysis here has focused on the smaller
districts in our sample. We did analyze data from larger districts, although less deeply. As
expected, we found that the larger districts in our sample, irrespective of the state in
which they are located, see themselves as responsible for their own future and view the
development of their internal resources as the key for improvement efforts. However,
there are clear differences among the larger districts:

Three ―semi-urban‖ districts in our sample were large, but located outside a major
urban area. Rather than being in a ―declining‖ urban core, they served expanding,
increasingly diverse populations. They typically saw themselves as disengaged from
state policy because they believed that they were far ahead in their locally developed
improvement plans. Compliance was a given, but the need to comply did not drive or
shape these districts‘ priorities. In this regard, they were more like Danhill and
Middle Region, but with far greater resources, both financially and in the district
offices.

Four inner-city districts, on the other hand, were ―resisters‖ who blamed the state for
unfair policies that worked to the disadvantage of schools and students they served. In
one case, the district had sued the state in an effort to stop enforcement of some
components of the standards and accountability procedures.
274
Some of these differences warrant more thorough investigation and analysis. At
this point we emphasize that it is important to look closely at district responses to the
standards and accountability movement, and to avoid equating public statements by
national and state spokespeople with the more pragmatic responses of district
administrators whose primary objective is to develop local policies to improve the lives
and achievement of their students.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Six implications for policy and practice emerged from this section of our study.
1. State policy makers need to engage more strategically in determining how they
can provide support for the development and implementation of locally-defined
priorities for improvement of teaching and learning within the framework of state
standards and accountability policies and the practical realities of local
community contexts.
2. State policy makers and education agencies should find ways to disseminate the
creative initiatives that local districts develop to comply with and exceed state
policy expectations and expand on those expectations in light of local needs and
priorities.
3. State policy makers and education agencies need to be more responsive to
legitimate district concerns about unforeseen inequities arising from the
implementation of well-intended government policies.
4. District authorities, particularly superintendents, should consider how best to
develop quality performance benchmarks in addition to the minimum standards
mandated by the states. Additional standards should be based on nationally
normed tests, as well as those established by the state.
5. District authorities should develop more consistent networks to engage with state
policy development and adaptation. These networks should be consistent with the
variable needs and priorities of districts with different capacities and demographic
profiles.
6. District leaders are able to effectively define and pursue local goals and priorities
when they shape local understanding of state policies, and then incorporate this
understanding into local education priorities, policies and services.
275
Table 3.3.6
How District Leadership Varies in Response to State and Federal Policies
State Political Culture
Tortuga Shoals
TX: Traditional
Middle Region District
MO: Individualistic
North White Pine County
NC: Traditional
Danhill Regional District
NJ: Individualistic
Perceptions of state policy leadership
1.
Legitimacy of state
authority
Legitimacy of state authority
is uncontested.
Superintendent and other
district leaders emphasize
their duty to comply.
District contact with state
support is primarily through
regional service center,
which transmits information
about state/federal policies,
and provides PD related to
state policy/program
initiatives.
State legitimacy is present;
however district is a vocal
actor in policy development.
State legitimacy is present;
district complies with
standards, testing and other
mandates.
2.
State support for
districts
Not addressed by district
staff (note: MO has no
formal regional service
center system).
Coherence of state
policies
District administrators
accept the coherence of
state/federal policies. New
supt. believes that local
policies and practices need
to be better aligned with the
intent of state curriculum
and accountability policies,
and emphasizes the need for
vertical coherence.
District superintendent
actualizes policy coherence.
Two gaps in coherence that
the superintendent is
addressing with state and
district staff: 8th grade
algebra and EOC exam,
ensuring change at district
level to align curriculum
with state exams.
District capacity
for reform
District was high performing
relative to others in region,
but scores are declining.
New supt. commissions
Superintendent led changes
in staff, educator
philosophy, and practices to
increase capacity for reform.
Very limited state support.
State provides no resources or
direction even though it
mandates policies. Little
contact except for the
personnel and licensure
department, which is
understaffed. (Note: NC has
no formal regional service
center system.)
State policies driven by
initiatives from the governor
and legislature. District is
working with the state to align
assessment and accountability
policies with new priorities.
Local districts have to work
with staff and community
members to make sense of the
policies because of limited
direction from state.
District is classified as ―lowwealth.‖ Its capacity for
reform is limited by high
teacher turnover. However,
3.
4.
State legitimacy is present;
district must comply with
testing programs; little
interest in other state policy,
which is minimal.
District contact with state
support is primarily through
regional service center,
which transmits information
about state/federal policies,
and provides PD related to
state policy/program
initiatives. State government
(in state capital) viewed as
distant/unsupportive.
State policies viewed as
remote and out of touch with
local conditions and needs,
in part due to the priority
placed on 29 low-income
districts (Abbott districts).
District built internal
capacity through leadership
development and mentoring
over time. High
276
State Political Culture
Tortuga Shoals
TX: Traditional
Middle Region District
MO: Individualistic
system review to shake up
complacency. Turnover in
central office positions
affects district capacity to
respond to state initiatives,
which is affected by state
funding policies.
North White Pine County
NC: Traditional
Danhill Regional District
NJ: Individualistic
district builds internal
capacity by partnering with
external community groups
and colleges. The district
―grows‖ its own leaders so
local policy stability is high,
and the district is high
performing.
performing/high capacity and
collaborative leadership
team.
Retirements/retrenchments
may undermine capacity in
the future.
Superintendent maintains
many influential
connections to the state due
to his former role in the
State Department of
Education. Not only is he
connected to state actors, he
maintains his influence as a
state actor.
Administrators say it is easy
to contact people at DPI, but
contacts are limited to
personnel issues. Supt. has
many professional networks,
but limited to local county
area.
Superintendent is focused on
local networking. Lots of
regional connections with
other districts; sees district as
a source of support to
smaller districts.
Limited/Moderate:
Superintendent partners with
other superintendents for
support. However, he
identifies his most important
networks as internal to the
district, emphasizing the
role of principals.
Moderate: Local universities
and colleges; Southern
Association of Colleges and
Schools; Community
Economic Growth
Development group.
Moderate: Local universities
and colleges work on reform;
some business support. Most
emphasis is on networking
within the district.
Resources for district leadership
5.
Personal contacts/
connections
6.
Agency partners/
networks
Current superintendent
connected to senior
administrators from prior
position in a larger district,
and through the regional
education center to network
of supts. One elementary
school principal takes
advantage of personal
network with private reading
consultant to support
reading initiatives.
Limited: Schools make use
of PD offered through
education service center; a
multi-year support
relationship with developer
of math program ended due
to dissatisfaction.
Superintendent relies on a
regional consultant to do a
―curriculum audit‖ to give
direction and legitimacy to
new system-wide
improvement plan.
277
State Political Culture
7.
District as a policy
actor
8.
Pre-existing
strategic direction
Tortuga Shoals
TX: Traditional
Middle Region District
MO: Individualistic
North White Pine County
NC: Traditional
Danhill Regional District
NJ: Individualistic
District believes that its role
is to implement state policy.
Weaker test performance is
attributable to failure to
align curriculum and
instruction to changes in
state curriculum and
assessment. The intent is to
achieve more authentic
compliance with state policy
expectations.
System previously loosely
coupled to state policy with
little internal coordination.
Current supts. emphasize
coherence within district and
between district and state,
and improved teamwork
across organizational units.
Pre-existing and ongoing
local concerns and
directions include teen
pregnancy, Voc. Ed., and
high school completion.
The superintendent
advocates for change in state
standards and testing on
behalf of his district. Most
recently, the district is
pushing the state to allow 8th
graders to take the end of
course (EOC) Algebra exam
with 9th graders.
District views itself as state
policy actor, and lobbies the
state (through legislative
representatives) whenever an
issue is relevant.
Administrators note the
district voice is not as
powerful as others.
District does not view itself
as a state policy actor,
Superintendent sees himself
as a maverick who operates
outside of the usual ways of
doing business in the state;
district regards itself as a
leader rather than a follower.
The district emphasizes
increasing expectations for
academic rigor, student
achievement, reporting
processes, professional
development, and alignment
of curriculum to meet or
more importantly, exceed
state standards. The focus of
district staff is district
transformation and move to
the "front of the pack" in
student achievement in the
state.
The district prides itself on
strong district leadership.
However, recent district
direction and goals come from
the state and related NCLB
policies. Recent state-wide
mandates have interfered with
the strategic preferences for
promoting experimentation at
the school level before doing
system-wide change.
Strategic directions are set by
the perception of variability
among the schools and
constituencies, and by the
need to be inventive to
finance quality schools.
Quality is based largely on
recruiting/retaining high
quality staff.
278
3.4
State Leadership for School Improvement:
A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice
The evidence reported in the three sections of Part Three warrants a series of
implications for policy and practice.
Implications for Policy
1. Legislation should be introduced to support internal collaboration and
organizational change on the part of SEAs.
This recommendation responds to the mandates in national and state legislation
which demand that SEA staff from different offices break out of their silos and
share responsibility for educational success. The process of internal collaboration
and organizational change is slow in many states; it could be better supported
through direct legislative and gubernatorial action.
2. SEAs struggle with inadequate resources in their efforts to meet new
responsibilities. They cannot solve this problem on their own. A response on the
part of state legislatures and governors, as well as the federal government, is
needed.
SEAs have been obliged to take on new responsibilities as a consequence of the
standards and accountability movement. Often they are not adequately funded or
equipped to meet these responsibilities. States should acknowledge this problem
and take appropriate action to enhance the SEAs‘ capacities (or to reduce
monitoring requirements that are less directly connected to student learning).
Testimony from SEA staff members across the 10 states suggests that state
agencies do not receive enough funding to carry out their new federally mandated
obligations adequately, which means that they believe that districts are not
receiving needed support. Solutions may include new funding or changes in
staffing priorities.
3. State leaders should acknowledge the increasingly important role of districts as
collaborators in the policy process.
Our data suggest that state policy makers rarely incorporate the views of district
leaders in the legislative and agenda-setting process (except, occasionally,
through association lobbying). Given the central role that we find for the districts,
both from SEA, principal, and district data, this oversight should be addressed in
order to create more systemic policy initiatives.
Implications for Practice
1. School improvement requires the participation of all leaders.
Our findings complement those of Part I, where distributed leadership effects on
student achievement were among the most significant. In most states, there are
few forums for creating dialogue that might influence how people at all levels
make sense of state standards, tests, and other measures of student development.
When SEA staff members emphasize their role as service providers rather than
compliance monitors, they are in a position to improve their relationships with
district and school staff members. When legislators and key policy makers talk to
district superintendents, they are more likely to tweak existing policies and
develop new ones that are consistent with the various contextual features of
districts and schools. As relationships improve, they have a measurable effect on
district and school efforts to improve teaching and learning.
2. Collaboration in implementation is a state’s greatest ally.
People in many workplace settings report that when they collaborate with others,
their job satisfaction is greater, they have a stronger sense of efficacy, they are
more optimistic about their ability to achieve improvement outcomes, they are
better able to create links to outside agencies, and they are more optimistic about
meeting new demands.
3. There needs to be increased focus on how best to meet the different leadership
needs associated with variable contexts (location and demography).
All states have more rural than urban districts; all confront the strains that
differences in student demographic characteristics place on the provision of
educational support services. We suggest that state policy makers need to
consider that one size does not fit all when considering how the state will support
school and district leaders in meeting new accountability challenges.
4. States should do more to support the preparation and professional development of
district leaders, district-level staff members, and SEA staff members.
Although pressure on school and district leaders is increasing, the level of support
(professional development and expertise) extended to them has remained constant
or has declined. This is a problem that calls for additional state funding. Since the
preferred policy lever in most states is mandates rather than capacity building, the
solution here will require a shift in thinking at the gubernatorial and legislative
levels.
5. State- and district-level policy makers need to engage more strategically in
determining how states can provide support, not just pressure, for implementation
of locally defined priorities for improvement within the framework of state
standards and accountability policies.
For example, state policy makers and education agencies should find ways to
disseminate creative initiatives on the part of local districts to encourage authentic
280
compliance or even higher standards than those set by state policy, while
acknowledging local differences.
6. States need to listen to district officials as they voice their concerns about state
policies. In particular, state policy makers and education agencies need to be more
responsive to legitimate concerns about unforeseen inequities arising from the
implementation of well-intended government policies.
281
Conclusion
We began this investigation of the links between leadership and student learning
more than six years ago. Our work examined the multiple levels at which leadership can
be exercised in education—from the classroom to the statehouse. In 2003, we wrote the
following in our review of the literature which informed our study:
[Leadership] efforts will be increasingly productive as research provides us with
more robust understandings of how successful leaders make sense of and
productively respond to both external policy initiatives and local needs and
priorities. Such efforts will also benefit considerably from more fine grained
understandings than we presently have of successful leadership practices, and
from much richer appreciations of how those practices seep into the fabric of the
education system, improving its overall quality and substantially adding value to
our students‘ learning.305
Our research has uncovered many fine grained behaviors that are elements of
being an effective leader and has pointed to the conditions that encourage or discourage
these productive actions. Principal - teacher relationships, district leaders‘ interactions
with principals, and policy decisions at the state level all are intertwined in a complex and
changing environment. We found links between all elements of our theoretical
framework, with some having a more direct relationship with student learning.
Principals, who are the formal leaders closest to the classroom, are most effective
when they see themselves as working collaboratively towards clear, common goals with
district personnel, other principals, and teachers. These leaders are more confident in
their leadership and are experiencing greater efficacy. In addition, district support for
shared leadership at the school level enhances the sense of efficacy among principals.
When principals and teachers share leadership, teachers‘ working relationships
with one another are stronger and student achievement is higher. District support for
shared leadership fosters the development of professional communities. Where teachers
feel attached to a professional community, they are more likely to use instructional
practices that are linked to improved student learning. Our results suggest that a
particular, single best way to distribute or share leadership does not exist. Rather,
leadership distribution patterns are affected by the goals that school personnel associate
with certain tasks. The more encompassing the goal, the greater the likelihood that
multiple sources of leadership will be appropriate.
We found that higher-performing schools generally ask for more input and
engagement from a wider variety of stakeholders and provide more opportunities for
influence by teacher teams, parents, and students. Finally, while principals and district
leaders continue to exercise more influence than others in all schools, they do not lose
305
Leithwood et al. (2004b), p. 12.
282
influence as others gain it. Influence does not come in fixed quantities. Influential leaders
wishing to retain their influence may share leadership confidently.
Expectations and accountability measures also emerged as a major focus for
leadership activity throughout our investigation. In districts where levels of student
learning are high, for example, district leaders are more likely to emphasize goals and
initiatives that reach beyond minimum state expectations for student performance, while
they continue to use state policy as a platform from which to challenge others to reach
higher ground. In schools that are doing well, teachers and principals pay attention to
multiple measures of student success.
Finally, we found that, overall, state initiatives matter. States, for all the
variability in their approaches to policy making, are firmly focused on standards and
accountability. Most make use of state mandates, and pay more limited attention to
support and professional development for leaders. The translation of legislative and
gubernatorial initiatives into support for schools falls to the state agencies, which are
struggling to realize a significant change in their roles, shaped by the standards and
accountability movement. Districts and schools generally view states as partners with
limited vision and even fewer resources. They move forward as best they can with efforts
to comply with the spirit of state discussions and agendas, or to take account of the
meaning behind the prescribed state plans and to exceed the minimums.
Reform in the U.S educational system is both lively and messy but, as educators
grapple with emerging demands, we found that leadership matters at all levels. Leaders in
education provide direction for, and exercise influence over, policy and practice. Their
contributions are crucial, our evidence shows, to initiatives aimed at improving student
learning, and of course ultimately to the future in which we all share.
283
284
References
Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home-school relations:
Parent involvement strategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban
Education, 37(3), 384-407.
Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing researchbased interventions. New York, NY: Longmans.
Allison, D. J. (1996). Chapter 16: Problem finding, classification and interpretation: In
search of a theory of administrative problem processing. In K. Leithwood, C.
Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of
educational leadership and administration (Vol. 1, pp. 477-549). Dordrecht, NL:
Kluwer.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student
learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18).
Anderson, G. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of
participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal,
35(4), 571-603.
Anderson, G. L. (1999). The politics of participatory reforms. Theory into Practice,
38(4), 191-195.
Anderson, S. & Rodway-Macri, J. (2009). District administrator perspectives on student
learning in an era of standards and accountability: A collective frame analysis.
Canadian J. of Education 32(2), 192-221.
Anderson, S., & Togneri, W. (2005). School district-wide reform policies in education. In
N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (Eds.),
International handbook of educational policy. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Anderson, S. E. (2006). The school districts' role in educational change. International
Journal of Educational Change, 15(1), 13-37.
Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement.
Educational Leadership, 44, 9-11.
Arum, R. (2000). Schools and communities: Ecological and institutional dimensions. In
Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 395-418.
Avolio, B., J. (1994). The alliance of total quality and the full range of leadership. In B.
M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership (pp. 121-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bali, V. A. (2003). Implementing popular initiatives: What matters for compliance?
Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1130-1146.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy and mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997a). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
285
Bandura, A. (1997b). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bauch, P., & Goldring, E. (2000). Teacher work context and parent involvement in urban
high schools of choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 1-23.
Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1998). Site-based management and school success: Untangling
the variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(4), 349-357.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and
incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2),
163-172.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Berezin, M. (1997). Politics and culture: a less fissured terrain. Annual Review of
Sociology, 23, 361-383.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational
change: Volume VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Berman, P., Weiler, D., Czesak, K., Gjelten, T., & Izu, J. A. (1981). Improving school
improvement: A policy evaluation of the California School Improvement
Program. Berkeley, CA: Berman, Weiler.
Bidwell, C., Frank, K., & Quiroz, P. (1997). Teacher types, workplace controls, and the
organization of schools. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 285-308.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote
learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment
and accountability (103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education) (pp. 20-50). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Blackmore, J. (1996). Doing 'emotional labour' in the education market place: Stories
from the field of women in management. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 17(3), 337-349.
Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers‘ perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 24, 589-610.
Blase, J. (1989). The micropolitics of the school: The everyday political perspectives of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 377-407.
Boesse, B. D. (1991). Planning how to transfer principals: A Manitoba experience.
Education Canada, 31(1). unpaginated.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 73(2), 125-230.
Boschken, H. L. (1998). Institutionalism: intergovernmental exchange, administrationcentered behavior, and policy outcomes in urban agencies. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 8(4), 585-614.
Boss, M. O., & Zeigler, H. (1977). Experts and Representatives: Comparative basis of
influence in educational policy-making. The Western Political Quarterly, 30(2),
255-262.
286
Bowers, D., & Seashore, S. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a fourfactor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238-263.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., &
Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist,
41(10), 1069-1077.
Bruggink, P. (2001). Principal succession and school improvement: The relationship
between the frequency of principal turnover in Florida public schools from 199091 and school performance indicators in 1998-99. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Florida State University.
Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago
elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-44.
Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject
matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School
Journal, 103(5), 519-535.
Campbell, C., & Fullan, M. (2006). Unlocking the potential for district wide reform:
Ontario Ministry of Education. Available at
http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/Articles_06a.htm.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The
case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A
cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
Cascadden, D. S. T. (1998). Principals and managers and leaders: A qualitative study of
the perspectives of selected elementary school principals. Journal of School
Leadership, 8(2), 137-170.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and
constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167-199.
Cawelti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2001). High student achievement: How six school districts
changed into high-performance systems. Arlington, VA: Educational Research
Service.
Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership
effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism and efficacy. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267-277.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting
self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(3), 549-556.
287
Chilton, S. (1988). Defining political culture. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(3),
419-445.
Clune, W. H. (1987). Institutional choice as a theoretical framework for research on
educational policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 117-132.
Clune, W. H., & White, P. A. (1992). Education reform in the trenches: Increased
academic course taking in high schools with lower achieving students in states
with higher graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 14(1), 2-20.
Coburn, C. E. & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence-based practice in school
districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469-495.
Coburn, C. E., Touré, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and
persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction and
research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
Conger, C., & Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Corbett, H. D., Dawson, J., & Firestone, W. (1984). School context and school change:
Implications for effective planning. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better
Schools.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G. J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the
effectiveness of instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement(7),
197-228.
Crispeels, J. H., Castillo, S., & Brown, J. S. (2000). School leadership teams: A process
model of team development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
11(1), 20-56.
Crispeels, J., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How
parent education can reshape parents' sense of place in the education of their
children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119-169.
Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (2001). The new role of community development in
educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 9-29.
Davidson, B. M. & Taylor, D. L. (1998, April). The effects of principal succession in an
Accelerated School. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA
Davidson, B., & Taylor, D. L. (1999, April). Examining principal succession and teacher
leadership in school restructuring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.
Daly, A. J., & Chrispeels, J. (2008). A question of trust: Predictive conditions for
adaptive and technical leadership in educational contexts. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(1), 30-63.
Deal, T. E. (1993). The culture of schools. In M. Sashkin & H. J. Walberg (Eds.).
Educational leadership and school culture. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
Publishing.
Dentler, R. (1984). Ambiguities in state-local relations. Education and Urban Society,
16(2), 145-184.
288
DeMoulin, D. F. (1992). Demographic characteristics associated with perceived selfefficacy levels of elementary, middle and secondary principals. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association,
Knoxville, TN.
Desimone, L. M. (2006). Consider the sources: Response differences among teachers,
principals and districts on survey questions about their education policy
environment. Educational Policy, 20(4), 640-676.
DeYoung, A. J. (1995). Constructing and staffing the cultural bridge: The school as
change agent in rural Appalachia. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(2),
168-192.
Dimmock, C., & Hattie, J. (1996). School principals' self-efficacy and its measurement in
a context of restructuring. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1),
62-75.
Dorfman, P., House, R. (2004). Cultural influences on organizational leadership, In R.
House, P. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.) Cultural leadership
and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies (pp. 51-73). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as
predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44-56.
Driscoll, M. E. (1998). Professionalism versus community: Themes from recent school
reform literature. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(1), 89-127.
Dufour, R., Eaker, R. & Dufour R.. (Eds.) (2005). On Common Ground: The Power of
Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: National Education
Service.
Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York, NY:
Random House.
Dunlap, D.M. & Goldman, P. (1991). Rethinking power in schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 27(1), 5-29.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2002). Leading schools in a data-rich world. In K. Leithwood & P.
Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and
administration. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
EducationAlliance. (2008). How can state education agencies support district
improvement? A conversation amongst educational leaders, researchers, and
policy actors. Providence, RI: Brown University.
EducationAlliance. (n.d.). Developing and implementing statewide systems of support for
low-performing schools: Design elements of state-wide systems of support.
Providence, RI: Brown University.
Edwards, N. (1933). Federal and state relations to education. Review of Educational
Research, 3(5, The Legal Basis of Education), 373-377.
Elazar, D. J. (1970). Cities of the prairie. New York, NY: Basic.
Elliot, T. (1959). Toward an understanding of public school politics. American Political
Science Review, 53(4), 1032-1051.
Elmore, R. (1995). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational
Review, 66(1), 1-26.
289
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1998). School variation and systemic instructional
improvement in Community School District #2, New York. Retrieved September
3, 2007, from http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/hplc/publications/school%20variation.pdf
Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. (1995). Opportunity-to-Learn Standards and the State Role
in Education. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 432-457.
Epstein, J., & Dauber, S. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School
Journal, 91, 279-289.
Erickson, F. (2007). Some thoughts on "proximal" formative assessment of student
learning. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 186-216).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159-188.
Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A growth
modeling analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(1), 27-61.
Febey, K., & Louis, K. S. (2009). Perspectives on political cultures in three states. In B.
Cooper, L. Fusarelli & J. Cibulka (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Policy
Research. New York: Routledge, 52-72.
Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in
teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.
Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on
participation in children‘s schools. Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 2939.
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62-89.
Firestone, W. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164.
Firestone, W. A. (1984). The politics of technical assistance: Regional educational
service agencies in their state context. Education and Urban Society, 16(2), 189206.
Firestone, W. A., & González, R. A. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in
schools. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 132-154).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Firestone, W. A., & Martinez, M. C. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed
leadership: Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools,
6(1), 3-35.
Firestone, W. A., & Nagle, B. (1995). Differential regulation: Clever customization or
unequal interference? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 97-112.
Firestone, W. A., Rossman, G., & Wilson, B. (1982). Only a phone call away: Local
educators' views of regional educational service agencies. Philadelphia, PA:
Research for Better Schools.
Follett, M. (1924). Creative experience. New York, NY: Longmans Green.
Fowler, F. (2000). Converging forces: Understanding the growth of state authority over
education. In N. Theobald, & B. Malen, Balancing Local Control and State
Responsibility for K-12 Education (pp. 123-146). Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education, Inc.
290
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59109.
Friedkin, N. E., & Slater, M. R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social
network approach. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 139-157.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1987). Education policy: A new context for governance. Publius, 17(3,
The State of American Federalism, 1986), 131-143.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1994). Clinton's education policy and intergovernmental relations in the
1990s. Publius, 24(3, The State of American Federalism, 1993-1994), 83-97.
Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state
education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
Fullan, M. (1991). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership, 49(5), pp. 19-20.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depth of educational reform. London &
New York: Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2001a). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2001b). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York &
Toronto: Teachers College Press & Irwin Publishing Ltd.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The dynamics of taking charge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Gamoran, A., & Dreeben, R. (1986). Coupling and control in educational organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 612-632.
Gareis, C. R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Principals' sense of efficacy and trust.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Gareis, C. R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2005). Cultivating principals' sense of efficacy:
Supports that matter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration, Nashville, TN.
Gezi, K. (1990). The role of leadership in inner-city schools. Educational Research
Quarterly, 12(4), 4-11.
Ginsberg, R., & Wimpelberg, R. K. (1987). Educational change by commission:
Attempting "trickle down" reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
9(4), 344-360.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of
efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 62(1), 97-110.
Goddard, R., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000a). Academic emphasis of urban
elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A
multi-level analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683-702.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000b). Collective teacher efficacy:
Its meaning, measure and impact on student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
291
Goldring, E., & Sims, P. (2005). Propelling teaching and learning: The politics of
leadership academies and district-community-university partnerships. Education
Policy, 19(1), 223-249.
Goldschmidt, S. M., & Stuart, L. E. (1986). The extent and impact of educational policy
bargaining. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 39(3), 350-360.
Goldstein, J. (2003). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance
and review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 397-422.
Gordon & Louis (in press). Linking parent and community involvement with student
achievement: Comparing principal and teacher perceptions of stakeholder
influence. American Journal of Education.
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of
parental involvement in children‘s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89(3), 538-548.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second
international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653696). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
Gronn, P. (2009). Hybrid leadership. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall & T. Strauss (Eds.),
Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 17-40). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness. The
American Journal of Sociology, 69, 47-54.
Hall, G. (1992).Characteristics of change facilitator teams: Keys to implementation
success. Educational Research and Perspectives, 19(1), 95-110.
Hallinger, P. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading
achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-351.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy
that refuses to fade away. College of Management, Mahidol University, Thailand.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996a). The principal's role in school effectiveness: An
assessment of methodological progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood & P.
Hallinger (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and
administration (pp. 723-783). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996b). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),
157-191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership
and school improvement. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research
on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 141-162). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of
vision, mission, and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K.
292
Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational
leadership and administration (pp. 9-40). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American
Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355.
Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional
leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of
School Leadership, 17(2), 59-194.
Hamann, E., & Lane, B. (2004). The role of state departments of education as policy
intermediaries: Two cases. Educational Policy, 18(3), 426-455.
Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (1998). Big isn’t always bad: School district size, poverty,
and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Hardee-Cleaveland, K., & Banister, J. (1988). Fertility policy and implementation in
China, 1986-88. Population and Development Review, 14(2), 245-286.
Hargreaves, A. (1992). Time and teachers' work: An analysis of the intensification thesis.
Teachers College Record, 94, 87-108.
Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record,
103(6), 1056-1080.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Hargreaves, A., Moore, S., Fink, D., Brayman, C., & White, R. (2003). Succeeding
leaders? A study of principal rotation and succession. Toronto, ON: Ontario
Principals' Council.
Harris, A. (2002). Distributed leadership in schools: Leading or misleading? Paper
presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Leadership,
Management and Administration Society, Birmingham, UK.
Harris, A. (2009). Distributed knowledge and knowledge creation. In K. Leithwood, B.
Mascall & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence
(pp. 253-266). New York, NY: Routledge.
Haskew, L. D. (1970). The state and educational policy. Public Administration Review,
30(4), 359-365.
Heck, R. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational
property of schools and students' achievement and growth rates. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399-432.
Heller, M.F., & Firestone, W.A. (1995). Who‘s in charge here? Sources of leadership for
change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-86.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual Synthesis.
Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab.
Heritage, M., & Yeagley, R. (2005). Data use and school improvement: Challenges and
prospects. In J. L. Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for
educational accountability and improvement (pp. 320-339). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Herzik, E. B. (1985). The legal-formal structuring of state politics: A cultural
explanation. The Western Political Quarterly, 38(3), 413-423.
Hess, A. (1999). Community participation or control? From New York to Chicago.
Theory into Practice, 38(4), 217-224.
293
Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds.). (2002). School districts
and instructional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles
and team effectiveness: A field study. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 387-397.
Ho Sui-Chu, E., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade
achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126-141.
Holyoke, T. T., Henig, J. R., Brown, H., & Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2007). Institution
advocacy and the political behavior of charter schools. Political Research
Quarterly, 60(2), 202-214.
Honig, M. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators‘
roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.
Honig, M., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage
multiple, conflicting demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's
education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310331.
Hord, S., & Sommers, W. (forthcoming). Leadership and professional learning
communities: Possibilities, practice and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Howey, C. (1996). Compounding disadvantage: The effects of school and district size on
student achievement in West Virginia. Journal of Research in Rural Education,
12(1), 25-32.
Hutchins, E. (1996). Organizing work by adaptation. In J. R. Meindl, C. Stubbart & J. F.
Porac (Eds.), Cognition within and between organizations (pp. 368-404).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoy, W. K, & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and
measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(3), 296-321.
Iatarola, P., & Fruchter, N. (2004). District Effectiveness: A Study of Investment
Strategies in New York City Public Schools and Districts. Educational Policy,
18(3), 491-512.
Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the "data-driven" mantra:
Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. In P. A. Moss (Ed.),
Evidence and decision making (pp. 105-131). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Imants, J. G. M., & De Brabander, C. J. (1996). Teachers' and principals' sense of
efficacy in elementary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(2), 179-195.
James, T. (1991). State authority and the politics of educational change. Review of
Research in Education, 17, 169-294.
Jaques, E. (2003). Ethics for management. Management Communications Quarterly,
17(1), 136-142.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority
children's academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.
Jeynes, W. (2007). The relationship between parent involvement and urban secondary
school achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110.
294
Jimerson, L. (2005). Placism in NCLB: How rural children are left behind. Journal of
Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 211-219.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). SPSS LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago,
IL: SPSS Inc.
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., & Hopkins, D. (2002). Models of learning, tools for teaching.
London, UK: Open University Press.
Katz, S., Sutherland, S., & Earl, L. (2002). Developing an evaluation habit of mind.
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 17(2), 103-119.
Keith, N. Z. (1999). Whose community schools? New discourses, old patterns. Theory
into Practice, 38(4), 225-234.
Keedy, J., & Allen, J. (1998). Examining district norms from a rural school's site-based
improvement perspective: Complementary or constructive? Journal of School
Leadership, 8(2), 187-210.
King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional
development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of
Educational Management, 15(2), 86-93.
Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York, NY:
Longman.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-solving, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kirst, M., & Walker, D. (1971). An analysis of curriculum policy-making. Review of
Educational Research, 41(5), 479-509.
Knapp, M. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Swinnerton, J. A. (2007). Understanding the promise
and dynamics of data-informed leadership. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and
decision making (pp. 74-104). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Koretz, D. (2005). Alignment, high stakes, and the inflation of test scores. In J. L.
Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational
accountability and improvement (pp. 99-117). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kruse, S., and K. S. Louis. (in press). Strong Cultures: A Principal's Guide to Change.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M.
E., et al. (Eds.). (1995). The constructivist leader. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Lee, J. (1997). State activism in education reform: Applying the Rasch model to measure
trends and examine policy coherence. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 19(1), 29-43.
Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Education
Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.
Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary
schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-267.
295
Leech, D., & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the
principal‘s leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district.
Education 128(4), 630-644.
LeFloche, K., Martinez, F., O'Day, J., Stechner, B. M., Taylor, J., Cook, A., et al. (2007).
State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Vol. III-Accountability under NCLB: Interim Report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217-235.
Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2007). Leading with teacher emotions in mind. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful
school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. London, UK:
DfES. Available at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR800.pdf
Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century's quest to understand school leadership. In
J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
administration (pp. 45-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources
of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 35(Supplemental), 679-706.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). Transformational school leadership effects: A
replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 451-479.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research: 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale
reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The role of
collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic
leadership for large-scale reform: The case of England's National Literacy and
Numeracy Strategies. Journal of School Leadership and Management, 24(1), 5780.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Levin, B. (2005). Understanding leadership effects on pupil learning.
Toronto: Paper prepared for the UK Department of Skills and Education.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007).
Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the
system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (Eds.). (2009). Distributed leadership
according to the evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Leithwood, K., & Prestine, N. (2002). Unpacking the challenges of leadership at the
school and district level. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Challenges of school leadership
(NSSE Yearbook). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
296
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In
W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on
educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004a). How
leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning
from Leadership Project. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004b). Executive
Summary: How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The
Wallace Foundation.
Lieske, J. (1993). Regional subcultures of the United States. The Journal of Politics,
55(4), 888-913.
Linn, R. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational
Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
Little, J. W. (1996). The emotional contours and career trajectories of (disappointed)
reform enthusiasts. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 345-359.
Little, J. (2007). Teachers' accounts of classroom experience as a resource for
professional learning and instructional decision making. In P. Moss (Ed.),
Evidence and decision making (pp. 217-240). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal-setting: A motivational technique that works.
Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Louis, K. S. (1989). The role of the school district in school improvement. In M. Holmes,
K. Leithwood & D. Musella (Eds.), Educational policy for effective schools (pp.
145-167). Toronto, ON: OISE Press.
Louis, K. S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community,
organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(4), 477-489.
Louis, K. S. (2007a). Managing complex change: Bringing meso-politics back in. In M.
Wallace, M. Fertig & E. Schnelling (Eds.), Managing change in the public
services (pp. 97-115). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Louis, K. S. (2007b). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change,
8(1), 1-24.
Louis, K. S., & Corwin, R. G. (1984). Organizational Decline: How State Agencies
Adapt. Education and Urban Society, 16(2), 165-188.
Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high
schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177-204.
Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on
reforming urban schools. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Louis, K. S., Febey, K., Gordon, M., & Thomas, E. (2008). State leadership for school
improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(4), 462-592.
297
Louis, K. S., Febey, K., Gordon, M., Meath, J., & Thomas, E. (2005, April 12).
Educational leadership from the states: A cultural analysis. Paper presented at
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Lucas, S. E. (2003). The development and impact of principal leadership self-efficacy in
middle level schools: Beginning an enquiry. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Lutz, F. W. (1986). Reforming education in the 1980s. Peabody Journal of Education,
63(4, Reforming Education in the 1980s), 1-5.
MacBeath, J. (2005). Leadership as distributed: A matter of practice. School Leadership
and Management, 25(4), 349-366.
MacBeath, J. (2009). Distributed leadership: Paradigms, policy and paradox. . In K.
Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to
the evidence. New York: Routledge.
Macmillan, R. (2000). Leadership succession, cultures of teaching and educational
change. In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational
change: Teaching, leading and the realities of reform (pp. 52-71). London, UK:
Routledge/Falmer.
Macmillan, R., Meyer, M., Northfield, S. (2005). Principal succession and the continuum
of trust in schools. In H. Armstrong (Ed.), Examining the practice of school
administrators in Canada (pp. 85-102). Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Macmillan, R. B. (1996). The relationship between school culture and principal's
practices at the time of succession. University of Toronto, Toronto.
Macneil, A. J.; Prater; D. L. & Busch, S. (2007). The effects of school culture and climate
on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education.
Malen, B. (1994). Enacting site-based management: A political utilities analysis.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 249-267.
Malen, B. (1999). The promises and perils of participation on site-based councils. Theory
into Practice, 38(4), 209-216.
Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based
governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 10, 251-270.
Mandinach, E. & Honey, M. (2008). Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and
learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Manna, P. (2004). Leaving no child behind. In C. I. Cross (Ed.), Political education:
National policy comes of age. New York: Teachers College Press.
Marks, H., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The
implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student
academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245275.
Marks, H., Louis, K. S., & Printy, S. (2002). The capacity for organizational learning:
Implications for pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.),
Organizational learning and school improvement. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 370-397.
298
Marsh, J. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A review of
emerging literature. In J. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin
(Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 25-40). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Marshall, C. (1988). Bridging the chasm between policymakers and educators. Theory
into Practice, 27(2, Research, Policy, Practice: Where Are We Headed?), 98-105.
Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1986). The context of state-level policy formation.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8(4), 347-378.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Massell, D., & Goertz, M. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity.
In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School
districts and instructional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Mawhinney, H. B. (2004). Deliberative democracy in imagined communities: How the
power geometry of globalization shapes local leadership praxis. Educational
Administrative Quarterly, 40(2), 192-221.
Mazzoni, T. L. (1993). The changing politics of state education policy making: A 20-year
Minnesota perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 357379.
Mayrowetz, D., & Smylie, M. (2004). Work redesign the works for teachers. In Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, (Vol. 103, pp. 274-302).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social
cognitive theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22-33.
McDermott, K. A. (2003). What causes variation in states' accountability policies?
Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 153 - 176.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy
instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 0(2), 171-178.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. Hightower, M.
Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional
renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory:
Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2(4), 301-332.
McMahon, T., & Perritt, G. W. (1971). The control structure of organizations: An
empirical examination. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 327-340.
McNeil, L. (2000a). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized
testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
McNeil, L. (2000b). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of school reform. Phi
Delta Kappan (June), 728-734.
MDRC (2007). Instructional Leadership, Teaching Quality, and Student Achievement:
Suggestive Evidence from Three Urban School Districts.
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/470/overview.html
299
Merli, G., & Raftery, A. E. (2000). Are births underreported in rural China?
Manipulations of statistical records in response to China's population policies.
Demography, 37, 109-126.
Miller, R. J., & Rowan, B. (2006). Effects of organic management on student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 219-253.
Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of Democratic schools: Parentteacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 814851.
Miskel, C. and Owens, M. (1983). Principal succession and changes in school coupling
and effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. April 11-15.
Miskel, C. & Cosgrove, D. (1984, April). Leader succession: A model and review for
school settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Møller, J. (2006). Democratic schooling in Norway: Implications for leadership in
practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 53-69.
Mortimore, P. (1993). School effectiveness and the management of effective learning and
teaching. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(4), 290-310.
Mosenthal, J., Lipson, M., Torncello, S., Russ, B., & Mekkelsen, J. (2004). Contexts and
practices of six schools successful in obtaining reading achievement. Elementary
School Journal, 104(5), 343-367.
Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective districts.
Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175-181.
Nanavati, M. & McCulloch. (2003). School culture and the changing role of the
secondary vice principal. Toronto: Ontario Principals‘ Council.
Nelson, B., & Sassi, A. (2005). The effective principal: Instructional leadership for high
quality learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). School restructuring and authentic student
achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Newmann, F.M., Secada, W.G., & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). A guide to authentic
instruction and assessment: vision, standards and scoring. Madison, WI:
Document Service, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., &. Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program
coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (4), 297-321.
O'Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P. (2005). Within the account era: Principals' instructional
leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56-71.
Ogawa, R. T. (1991). Enchantment, disenchantment and accommodation: How a faculty
made sense of the succession of its principal. Education Administration
Quarterly, 27, 30-60.
Ogawa, R. T. (1995). Administrator succession in school organizations. In S. B.
Bacharach and B. Mundel (Eds.), Images of schools: Structures and roles in
organizational behaviour, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
300
Opfer, V. D., & Denmark, V. (2001). Sorting out a sense of place: School and school
board relationships in the midst of school-based decision making. Peabody
Journal of Education, 76(2), 101-118.
Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional
analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the
policy process (pp. 21-64). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Partlow, M. (2004). Turnover in the Elementary School Principalship and Factors that
Influence It. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Dayton.
Patrikakou, E. N., & Weissberg, R. P. (1998). Parents' perceptions of teacher outreach
and parent involvement in children's education. Philadelphia: Temple University
Center for Research in Human Development and Education.
Patterson, D., & Rolheiser, C. (2004). Creating a culture of change: Ten strategies for
developing an ethic of teamwork. Journal of Staff Development (Web Exclusive),
25(Spring), 1-4.
Pearce, C. J., & Conger, C. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perkins, N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations (pp. 88-110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2003). Group efficacy and group effectiveness: The effects of group
efficacy over time on group performance and development. Small Group
Research, 34(1), 20-42.
Pitner, N. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan (Ed.),
Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 99-122). New York,
NY: Longman.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pounder, D. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring the job characteristics and work-related
outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(3), 317-348.
Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T., & Adams, E. A. (1995). Leadership as an organizationwide phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 31(4), 564-588.
Rebhun, G. (1995). If it's Tuesday, it must be P.S. 101. Executive Educator; 17(5), 21-23
May.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better
results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Reeves, J.; Moos, L. & Forrest, J. (1998). The school leader‘s view, In J. MacBeath (Ed.),
Effective school leadership: Responding to change, (pp. 32-59). London, UK:
Paul Chapman.
Reeves, M. M. (1990). The states as polities: Reformed, reinvigorated, resourceful. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 509(American
Federalism: The Third Century), 83-93.
301
Reitzug, U., & Patterson, J. (1998). "I'm not going to lose you!" Empowerment through
caring in an urban principal's practice with pupils. Urban Education, 33(2), 150181.
Renzulli, L. A. (2005). Organizational environments and the emergence of charter
schools in the United States. Sociology of Education, 78(1), 1-26.
Resnick, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Mehalik, M., Sherer, J. Z., & Halverson, E. (2007). A
framework for effective management of school system performance. In P. A.
Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 155-185). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Reynolds, C., White, R., Brayman, C., & Moore, S. (2008). Women and secondary
school principal rotation/succession: A study of the beliefs of decision makers in
four provinces. Canadian Journal of Education, (31)1, 32-54.
Rice, J. K., Roellke, C., Sparks, D., & Kolbe, T. (2009). Piecing together the teacher
policy landscape: A policy problem typology. Teachers College Record, 111(2),
511-546.
Riley, K., & Louis, K. (2004). Exploring new forms of community leadership: Linking
schools & communities to improve educational opportunities for young people:
University of London, National College for School Leadership.
Roberts, W. L. (1997). An investigation of the relationship between principals' selfefficacy beliefs and their managing conflicts with teachers. Auburn University,
Auburn, AL.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Romanelli, E. (1991). The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual Review of
Sociology, 17, 79-103.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York, NY: Longman.
Ross, J. A. & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating
effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment of control: Alternative strategies for the organizational
design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353-389.
Rowan, B. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In S. H. Fuhrman &
J. J. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that
work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational
organizations. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 359-384). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ruef, M. (1997). Assessing organizational fitness on a dynamic landscape: An empirical
test of the relative inertia thesis. Strategic Management Journal, 18(11), 837-853.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy
coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Sacken, D. M., & Medina, M., Jr. (1990). Investigating the context of state-level policy
formation: A case study of Arizona's bilingual education legislation. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(4), 389-402.
302
Sanders, M. G. (1998). The effects of school, family, and community support on the
academic achievement of African American adolescents. Urban Education, 33(3),
385-409.
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Schein, E. (1993). Defining organizational culture. In J.M. Shafritz and J. S. Ott (Eds.).
Classics of organizational theory, (pp. 369-376). New York, N.Y.: Harcourt
College Publishers.
Scheurich, J. J. (1998). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools
populated mainly by low-SES children of color: Core beliefs and cultural
characteristics. Urban Education, 33(4), 451-491.
Schuller, T., Baron, S., & Field, J. (2000). Social Capital: A Review and Critique. In S.
Baron, et al. (Ed.), Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (pp. 3-38). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and
distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67-100.
Senge, P. M. (Fall 1990): The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review 7-23.
Sergiovanni, T. (2005). The virtues of leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, (2), 112123.
Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A
longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
625-648.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban
elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review,
35(2), 149-165.
Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program
implementation and parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 171187.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organizations - effects on teacher
leadership and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
15(3-4), 443-466.
Silins, H., & Mulford, W. (2002a). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood & P.
Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and
administration (pp. 561-612). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
Silins, H., & Mulford, W. (2002b). Schools as learning organizations: The case for
system, teacher and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40,
425-446.
Silins, H. C., Mulford, R. M., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613-642.
Smith, B. (1998). It’s about time: Opportunities to learn in Chicago’s elementary
schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research. Chicago, IL
Smith, T., Desimone, L., & Ueno, K. (2005). "Highly qualified" to do what? The
relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-
303
oriented instruction in middle school mathematics. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 27(1), 75-109.
Smith, W., Guarino, A. J., Strom, P., & Reed, C. (2003). Principal self-efficacy and
effective teaching and learning environments. School Leadership and
Management, 23(4), 505-508.
Smrekar, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2001). The voices of parents: Rethinking the
intersection of family and school. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 75-100.
Smylie, M., Conley, S., & Marks, H. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher
leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational
leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162-188).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smylie, M. A., & Wenzel, S. A. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Successes,
failures and lessons for the future: Final technical report of the Chicago
Annenberg research project. Chicago: IL: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.
Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of
how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC:
MDRC.
Spillane, J. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district:
Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research
Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
Spillane, J. (2002). District policy making and state standards: A cognitive perspective on
implementation. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School
districts and instructional renewal (pp. 143-159). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: how the subject matters. School
Leadership & Management, 25(4), 383-397.
Spillane, J., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational
Research, 72(3), 387-431.
Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school
district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational
Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zolmmers, J. (2002).
Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability
policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762.
Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction
of readership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of
Education, 76(1), 1-17.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 3-34.
304
Stecher, B. M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L. S., Marsh, J. A., Robyn, A., McCombs, A. R., et
al. (2008). Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states,
2004-2006. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2007). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis
of two urban school districts, American Educational Research Association.
Chicago, IL.
Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Stewart, D.J. (2000). Tomorrow’s principals today. Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove
Press, Massey University (49).
Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Stoll, L. (1999). School culture: Black hole or fertile garden for school improvement? In
J. Prosser (Ed.), School culture. British Educational Management Series. London,
UK: Sage.
Stolp, S. (1994). Leadership for school culture. East Lansing, MI: National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 91).
Supovitz, J. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice:
Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state
assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1961). Control and effectiveness in a voluntary organization.
American Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 33-46.
Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. K.
Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding:
Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tarter, C. J., Bliss, J. r., & Hoy, W. K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in
secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(3), 294-308.
Taylor, B., Pearson, D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and
accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in lowincome schools The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121-165
Timar, T. B. (1994). Politics, policy, and categorical aid: New inequities in California
school finance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 143-160.
Timar, T. B. (1997). The institutional role of state education departments: A historical
perspective. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 231-260.
Timar, T. B., & Kirp, D. L. (1988). State efforts to reform schools: Treading between a
regulatory swamp and an English garden. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 10(2), 75-88.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC:
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Townsend, T. (1994). Goals for effective schools: the view from the field. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(2), 127-148.
305
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547593.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tyack, D., & James, T. (1986). State government and American public education:
Exploring the forest primeval. History of Education Quarterly, 26(1), 39-69.
van den Berg, R., Vandenbergh, R. & Sleegers, P.(1999). Management of innovations
from a cultural-individual perspective. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 10, 321-351.
Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., et al. (2006).
Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Walker, E. (2004). The impact of state policies and actions on local implementation
efforts: A study of whole school reform in New Jersey. Educational Policy, 18(2),
338-363.
Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy and shared responsibility.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
Walberg, H., & Fowler, W. (1987). Expenditure and size efficiencies of public school
districts. Educational Researcher (October), 5-13.
Wallace, M. (2003). Managing the unmanageable? Coping with complex educational
change. Educational Management and Administration, 31(1), 9-29.
Waskiewicz, M. V. K. (2002). The mediating role of sense of community in the
relationship among principals' characteristics, district characteristics, and selfefficacy beliefs of public school principals in Florida., University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: the effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver: CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years
of research tells us about the effect of leadership on pupil achievement. A working
paper. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
(McREL).
Wayman, J. C., Midgley, S., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Leadership for data-based
decision-making: Collaborative educator teams. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement
gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.
306
Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation:
Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171197.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(12).
Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Review: From Practice to Praxis: Books about the New Principal
Preparation. Educational Researcher, 33(9), 33-37.
Wiley, S. D. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership and
professional community Journal of School Change, 2(1), 1-33.
Wilson, D. (2004). Assessment, accountability and the classroom: A community of
judgment. In D. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment
and accountability (103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education) (pp. 1-19). Chicago: IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, S. M., & Peterson, P. (2006). Theories of learning and teaching: What do they
mean for educators. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
Wirt, F., Mitchell, D., & Marshall, C. (1988). Culture and education policy: Analyzing
values in state policy systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4),
271-284.
Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice.
San Francisco: CA: Jossey Bass.
Witzier, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and pupil
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 34(3), 398-425.
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, P. (2008). Creating a system for data driven
decision making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 19(3), 239-259.
Wong, K. K. (1989). Fiscal support for education in American states: The "parity-todominance" view examined. American Journal of Education, 97(4), 329-357.
Wong, K. K. (1991). State reform in education finance: Territorial and social strategies.
Publius, 21(3), 125-142.
Wood, B. D., & Theobald, N. A. (2003). Political responsiveness and equity in public
education finance. Journal of Politics, 65(3), 718-738.
Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian
Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775-793.
Yammarino, F., Dionne, S., Chun, J., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of
analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919.
Yeh, S. (2006). Reforming federal testing policy to support teaching and learning,
Educational Policy, 20(3), 495-524.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and method. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
307
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings
from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255316.
Youngs, P. (2001). District and state policy influences on professional development and
school capacity. Educational Policy, 15(2), 278-301.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E.
Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and
application. New York, NY: Plenum.
Zembylas, M. (2003). Interrogating "teacher identity": Emotion, resistance, and selfformation. Educational Theory, 53(1), 107-127.
308
Appendix A
METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX
Introduction
As proposed and undertaken, our study was large and complex. The specifics of
sampling, instrumentation, data collection, coding, and analysis evolved from what we
proposed to the Wallace foundation in 2003. For the project as a whole, we collected two
rounds of survey data from principals and teachers and three rounds of site-visit data
from schools and districts, including classroom observations and interviews with teachers
and building and district administrators. We also interviewed state-level education
leaders in two rounds. We sampled states to ensure variation in geography, student
demographics, state governance for education, curriculum standards, leadership policies,
and accountability systems. We sampled districts to achieve variation in size and
demographic diversity. We sampled schools to ensure variation in school level and
demographic diversity. We obtained student achievement data for literacy (reading or
language arts) and mathematics from scores on the states‘ tests for measuring Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB).
The Sampling Plan
Our sampling of states, districts, and buildings went through three stages. First, in
our response to the Wallace Foundation‘s RFP, we proposed a sampling plan that led to a
schematic ―proposed sample.‖ Second, we undertook the actual state, district, and
building sampling with a modified sampling plan, and it led to the ―selected sample.‖
Finally, following our district and building recruitment plan, we gained our ―achieved
sample.‖
The proposed sample
We proposed a stratified random sampling plan for survey data collection that
would yield nine states, five districts per state, and four schools per district. We proposed
to sample three states from each of three regions—the East Coast, the South, and the
Midwest and West. We proposed that the 45 districts would be stratified by size and level
of student poverty/diversity and would be a uniform distribution of districts across these
variables (Table A.1). We show our criteria for classifying districts in Table A.2.
Table A.1
Proposed District Sample: Size By Poverty / Diversity
Diversity/Poverty
District Size
High
Medium
Large
5
5
Medium
5
5
Small
5
5
Low
5
5
5
309
Table A.2
District Classification Criteria
Size
Number of students
Large 25,000 and above
Medium 2,500 - 24,999
Small
600* - 2,499
Poverty
Percent of students
qualifying for free or
reduced lunch
High
66% or higher
Mid
18% - 65%
Low
Less than 18%
Diversity
Percent of white students
High
Mid
Low
Less than 18%
18% - 65%
66% or higher
*Six hundred was our lower limit for district recruitment purposes. Although 36% of school
districts in the U.S. had fewer than 600 students, they accounted for just 3% of the student
population.
We proposed that the 180 schools would be a uniform distribution across the
poverty/diversity variable and building level (Table A.3).
Table A.3
Proposed School Sample: Level By Diversity / Poverty
Diversity/Poverty
School Level
High
Medium
Elementary
20
20
Middle School
20
20
High School
20
20
Low
20
20
20
The state sample
In the RFP under ―Site Selection,‖ the Wallace Foundation made it clear that it
expected the research to be undertaken in some of the states and districts that were then
involved in their funded leadership development efforts, especially in the 15 states in the
SAELP (State Action for Education Leadership) consortium and the 12 LEAD districts
(Leadership for Education Achievement in Districts) in 12 of the SAELP states. Wallace
did not require bidders to include all of the sites they funded and did encourage bidders to
consider studying sites outside of the funded pool. In our proposal, we showed an
example selection of nine states from the three regions that included four SAELP states.
When we actually sampled states, we agreed to aim for four Wallace funded states. We
decided to restrict the selection of the four to those where funding was at the state level
(SAELP) and at the district level (LEAD). We thought that limiting the Wallace funded
sample to four would allow our total sample to not be overly biased by the presence of
external funding for leadership development. We also wanted to ensure that the final
sample of states contained adequate variation on a range of variables that we believed
were potentially relevant to understanding leadership at the state and local levels, and that
would be consistent with variation across the country.
310
The state sampling process
 We divided the states into geographic quadrants—East, South, Midwest, and West
(Table A.4).306 In deciding where to draw the lines of these quadrants we took into
account historical conventions, geography, and population density. The purpose of
establishing the quadrants before random sampling was to ensure that we got a
reasonable distribution of states across the country.
 We assigned each state a separate number (1 to 48) from a computer generated
random sequence.
 We sorted the states in each quadrant in ascending order by their randomly generated
number.
 We selected the first SAELP and LEAD funded state from the list for each quadrant.
 We selected the second SAELP and LEAD funded state for each quadrant as an
alternate.307
 We selected the first three non-SAELP funded states within each quadrant to
complete the basic sample pool.308
 We selected the next two non-SAELP funded states from the list within each quadrant
to provide randomly generated alternates to the original pool.
Following our state sampling process, we formed a basic pool of 16 states with
the first selected SAELP and LEAD funded state and the first three non-SAELP funded
states from each quadrant. We next examined the variation on the variables we were
concerned about: poverty, racial/ethnic diversity, number of school districts, per pupil
spending, state board governance structures, principal certification requirements,
principal shortage levels, National Assessment of Educational Progress scores in reading
and mathematics, minority achievement and graduation rate gaps, state accountability
systems, and number of charter schools. Drawing these data from national sources and
state websites, we constructed a matrix that enabled us to display and analyze the
variability within our randomly generated 16-state sample.
We were satisfied with the range of variation achieved with our initial sample of
the eight states comprised of the first SAELP and LEAD funded state and the first nonSAELP funded state, but we identified a few variables for which the degree of variation
could be enhanced with the selection of the ninth state. We chose the ninth state
strategically from among the remaining states in the initial pool because it best
complemented the variation obtained with the first eight.
306
As two of the five districts in each state would be site visit districts as well as survey districts, we
excluded Hawaii and Alaska because of travel costs. We also excluded Washington DC because of its
atypical governance circumstances.
307
No alternate state was available in the West as no other state had both SAELP and LEAD funding.
308
Five states would be selected from the non-SAELP funded states – one state each from three quadrants
and two states from one of the quadrants.
311
Table A.4
Forty-eight contiguous states divided into quadrants
EAST (11)
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
WEST (11)
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
MIDWEST (12)
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
SOUTH (14)
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Before going further, we reported the selection criteria and the names of the
selected nine states to our program officer at the Wallace Foundation. The program
officer had a few questions about the selection and asked for clarifications before
presenting our state selection to the senior leadership team in the education division at
Wallace. Their approval of our selected sample came a few days later.
We did not ―recruit‖ the states, as there is no person who can say yes or no to a
request to participate for the state. We did, however, write a one-page letter to the highest
ranking education officer of each state telling him or her about the study and that their
state had been randomly selected.309 We also invited him or her to consider taking part in
the state leader interview component of our investigation. We attached a more detailed
description of the project and a consent form to participate in an interview.
District and School Sampling
The district sample
From the website of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES,
http://nces.ed.gov/) we downloaded their most current demographic data for all districts
in each of the nine states in the selected sample. The uniform distribution of districts
across size and poverty/diversity we show in Table A.1 was not possible with our
selected state sample because of the demographic realities in the nine states. For example,
309
Depending on the state, we wrote to the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the Commissioner of
Education or Secretary of Education or Chancellor of the State Board and so on.
312
a majority of small districts are rural, and rural communities tend to have less racial and
ethnic diversity in some parts of the country. Similarly, it is much easier to find low
poverty small districts than low poverty large districts: there were only seven low
poverty, large districts in the nine selected states, but all seven were in one state. Even so,
our nine-state selected sample fairly captured differences in student enrollment across the
48 states. We had two high enrollment states (1,500,000 or more students), four medium
enrollment states (500,000 to 1,500,000 students) and three low enrollment states (fewer
than 500,000 students). Our sample included states that had low minority populations,
states that had high nonwhite minority populations in a single race/ethnicity category, and
states that had large but more diverse nonwhite minority populations.
We then generated an initial sample pool of 80 districts (about nine per state) with
size, poverty and diversity in mind (Table A.2). In keeping with our decision to sample
five districts per state, we then ensured that in every state the selected sample reflected
variation on all three variables. We initially selected310 at least one large, medium, and
small district from each state. In terms of poverty, we selected districts representing all
three levels where possible, if not, then two. We also selected for high, medium, and low
diversity districts in all states, ensuring that at least two if not all levels were represented.
The size, poverty and diversity breakdowns of the selected sample were:
Size
14 Large
16 Medium
15 Small
Poverty
17 High
20 Medium
8 Low
Diversity
10 High
19 Medium
16 Low
We agreed that the variation of the selected sample provided a best approximation
of what we were looking for, but it was not a replicating sample in each state. We were
satisfied with the sample for the kinds of analyses we envisioned doing.
Generating a list was easy compared with recruiting the selected districts to
participate in the study. To recruit the districts, we first sent superintendents a letter seeking
their participation and followed up the letter with telephone calls. In the letter to the
superintendents, we told them about the study and that their district had been randomly
selected to participate. To participate, districts had to agree to be part of our survey data
collection. For their participation, we offered the district an incentive of a one-time stipend
of $500. We informed them that in our survey data collection we would be inviting
principals, assistant principals, and teachers to respond to a written survey about leadership
policy and practices that bear on teaching and learning; that we would conduct the principal
and teacher surveys in four schools per district representing elementary and secondary
schools; and that we would be conducting a second round of surveys in the final year of the
study (2008). We also recruited two of the districts per state as site visit and survey
districts. To these 18 districts, we offered the $500 incentive and a one-time stipend of
$200 to each school visited (typically two buildings per district). Anticipating that some
superintendents would ask with which schools we proposed to work, we were ready with a
310
If two or more districts satisfied the demographic characteristics under consideration, we randomly
selected districts with the SAMPLE command in SPSS; if there was only one district that satisfied the
desired demographic conditions, we took it.
313
proposed selection (see discussion of the school sample below).
Recruitment was slow going. The initial samples of eight or nine districts per state
were used up as the refusals came in. The most frequent refusal claim was that they were
―too busy.‖ We suspected that some were afraid of having their ―leadership problems‖
become public knowledge. In the face of that vulnerability, our assurances of anonymity
were not enough to encourage risk taking. When the initial sample of districts was used
up before getting five to agree to participate, we went back to the data base and sampled
further, sent letters, and followed up with calls. The districts in one state were particularly
unwilling or unresponsive. All but one of the first eight selected districts in this southern
state refused to participate, some even refusing to reply. We despaired of ever scheduling
a site visit. After considerable deliberation, we decided to abandon the state and go to the
first alternative in the state sample. We essentially lost four months of recruiting effort.
Unfortunate too was that by that time, we had already conducted eight telephone
interviews with senior education officials in the state. The alternative state was a
reasonable match in terms of preserving the sampling balance we had initially achieved.
The alternative was Louisiana, and the recruitment was going well enough when
Hurricane Katrina struck in late August, 2005. By mid-September we concluded that with
the devastation in much of the state, we had to give up Louisiana. In its place we took the
next sampled alternate in the South, North Carolina. In the end, the achieved state sample
was New Jersey and New York (East), Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas (South),
Indiana and Nebraska (Midwest), and New Mexico and Oregon (West).
The achieved district sample. The achieved district sample reflects the
challenges and realities of recruiting school district participation in research studies of
this sort. In all of the states, some if not most of the originally selected districts declined
to participate for one reason or another. Only 21 of the original 45 selected sample
districts (47%) agreed to participate and were in the achieved sample. We replaced
districts that refused with others that matched the size, poverty, and diversity profiles of
the original districts to the extent possible. In one state, for example, we recruited 14
school districts before getting agreement from five for the study. This was typical for
most states, but in some the recruitment process was even more difficult: In two states,
we only were able to recruit four districts each for an achieved sample of 43 rather than
45 districts. The size, poverty and diversity breakdowns of the achieved sample were:
Size
11 Large
19 Medium
13 Small
Poverty
9 High
26 Medium
8 Low
Diversity
7 High
22 Medium
14 Low
Eighteen (two per state) of the 43 districts in the study agreed to be site visit
districts. The size, poverty, and diversity breakdowns of the site visit districts sample
were:
Size
6 Large
6 Medium
6 Small
Poverty
4 High
10 Medium
4 Low
Diversity
3 High
8 Medium
7 Low
314
What appears to be an even distribution by size of site visit districts mask the actual
variability across the nine states:
 Four states had one small and one large site visit district
 Two states had one medium and one large site visit district
 Two states had one small and one medium site visit district
 One state had two medium site visit districts.
The building sample
We undertook the building sample as soon as we had the selected state and district
samples. From the NCES website, we downloaded their most current demographic data
for all buildings in each of the 45 districts in each of the nine states in the selected
sample.
The building sampling process
 We wanted regular schools, so we did not consider, that is, allow in the sampling data
base, service schools such as arts, technical, special education, alternative, evening,
hospital, home bound, incarcerated, and so on.
 We did not consider buildings of all one grade.
 We did not consider buildings with all grades, K – 12, in a single building.
 We did not consider charter or magnet schools.
 We did not knowingly consider primary only centers.
 All sampling was within a state.311
 Our sampling ideal was 20 per state, which was plus/minus 4 per district, for 180
schools total (Table A.3) but we decided to sample five schools per district (25 per
state, 225 total), which would allow for a 25% cushion against likely refusals to
participate even though we had the superintendent‘s blessing in each district prior to
getting in touch with building principals.
 We tried to draw one high school, two middle/junior highs, and two elementary
schools per district. In each case, we tried to sample from among schools that had the
same high, medium, or low poverty and diversity profiles as did the district overall.
Where we could not achieve this, we went for another building at the same level in
the same district that was off the poverty/diversity profile by only one step. When that
did not work either, as it did not in several small districts, we tried to sample the same
building level with the same poverty/diversity profile from another of the same sized
districts. Where that did not work, we tried to sample the same building level with the
same poverty/diversity profile from another district that was just one step larger.
In the end, in the 45-district selected sample, we selected 219 buildings. The
building level, poverty, and diversity breakdowns of this resulting selected building
sample were:
311
If two or more buildings satisfied the demographic characteristics under consideration, we randomly
selected the desired number of buildings – for example, two elementary buildings per district – with the
SAMPLE command in SPSS; if there was only one building that satisfied the desired demographic
conditions, we took it.
315
Level
90 Elementary
Diversity
56 High
Poverty
78 High
103 Medium
38 Low
81 Middle
48 High School
84 Medium
79 Low
The selected building sample departed from the idealized 20 per school level by poverty
or diversity levels. Table A.5 shows the crosstabulation of school level by poverty level
in the selected building sample.
Table A.5
Selected School Sample: Level By Poverty
School Level
Elementary
Middle School
High School
High
33
33
12
Poverty
Medium
41
37
25
Low
16
11
11
This selected sample was made before getting in touch with the superintendents.
Our view was that we had to be flexible in approaching superintendents with the four or
five buildings we wished to survey, and of those the two we wished to visit. We
acknowledged that we would follow their preferences if they wished to make changes in
our lists. Of course, some superintendents did make changes. Fifty-three percent of the
selected districts refused to participate and were replaced by alternates (and in many
cases, those alternates were replaced by alternates). We resampled each replacement
district‘s schools following the same procedures outlined above.
Once again, generating a list was easy compared with recruiting the selected
buildings. We first sent principals an e-mail seeking their participation and followed up
with telephone calls. In the e-mail, we told them that their superintendent had elected to
participate, that their school had been selected and their participation approved by the
superintendent, and outlined what participation entailed. For the site visit buildings we
told principals about the $200 incentive.
The achieved building sample. As with the achieved district sample, the
achieved building sample reflects the challenges recruiting schools to participate in
research studies of this sort. Only 76 of the original 219 selected sample buildings (35%)
agreed to participate and were in the achieved building sample. We replaced buildings
that refused with others that matched the size, poverty, and diversity profiles of the
original buildings to the extent possible. The achieved sample was 182 buildings. The
district size, building level, poverty, and diversity breakdowns of the achieved building
sample were
District Size
51 Large
Level
43 High School
84 Medium
54 Middle School
47 Small
85 Elementary
Poverty
52 High
95 Medium
35 Low
Diversity
36 High
85 Medium
60 Low
316
Data collection
Surveys
We twice surveyed the teachers, principals, and assistant principals in all the
buildings in the achieved sample. We administered the first round of surveys from
February 2005, to November 2006. During that period, we administered the teacher and
principal surveys continuously as districts and schools were recruited. We administered
the second round in spring and summer of 2008, having revised the Round One surveys
for Round Two. We developed the surveys collaboratively, producing multiple iterations
following numerous lengthy discussions about items and language. Both the teacher
surveys and both the principal surveys contained some items from established
instruments with good reliability measures as well as many new items and scales.
Round One
We field tested both Round One surveys in 14 schools in a Minnesota suburban
school district in December 2004, and January 2005. The purpose of the pilot was to
improve item clarity. We discussed the instruments with selected respondents after they
took the surveys. After revisions and more discussions with teachers and principals, we
were ready with a Round One teacher survey of 117 items and a principal survey of 149
items. The teacher survey was an eight-page optical scan booklet with glued bindings.
The principal survey was an eight-page, saddle stitched paper-and-pencil booklet.
The teacher and principal surveys measured perceptions of both district leadership
practices and district conditions or characteristics. In the surveys, all but one of the
perception or attitudinal variables were measured using six-point scales (from ―strongly
disagree‖ to ―strongly agree‖). Other response categories included choices about ―how
many‖ (six steps from ―none‖ to ―all‖); ―how often‖ (six steps from ―never‖ to ―very
frequently‖); and ―how much‖ (six steps from ―none‖ to ―very great‖). The principal
survey also had some items in which the response categories were five steps from ―very
little‖ to ―very great.‖ We divided the Round One teacher survey into sections with items
about:




The classroom, for example
I have a manageable number of students in my class(es)
I am able to monitor the progress of all my students to my satisfaction
The school
Disruptions of instructional time are minimized
The school schedule provides adequate time for collaborative teacher planning
Teachers
Teachers should prompt students to explain and justify their ideas to others
(teachers and peers)
I regularly incorporate student interests into lessons
Principal leadership practices
The principal provides useful assistance to you in setting short-term goals for
teaching and learning
317


The principal gives you individual support to help you improve your teaching
practices
School and home connections
How many parents/guardians of students in your class(es) usually attend parentteacher conferences
How many parents/guardians of students in your class(es) do you contact in the
first half of the school year
Demographics
How many years have you worked as a teacher
How many years have you worked in this school as a teacher?
We divided the principal survey into sections with items about:






State policy and influences, for example
State standards stimulate additional professional learning in our school
State policies help us accomplish our school‘s learning objectives
District leaderships
My district‘s leaders in the central office give schools a sense of overall purpose
My district‘s leaders in the central office demonstrate high expectations for my
work with staff and students
School leadership and conditions
Most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs, and attitudes
related to teaching and learning
There is ongoing, collaborative work among teachers in our school
Stakeholder influence
My school solicits input from community groups when planning curriculum
My school includes community leaders and organizations when making important
decisions
Professional development
My professional development has a significant role in helping me make decisions
about curriculum
My professional development has helped me to use data more effectively
Demographics
How many years have you worked as a principal
Including you, how many principals has your current school had in the past 10
years?
School administrators—mostly principals—recruited or encouraged their teachers
to fill out the survey. We made no personal appeals to the teachers to participate. We
intended to survey all teachers in the achieved school sample. We defined teacher as a
part-time or full-time school employee who is certified or licensed as a teacher and who
carries out instructional responsibilities.
We mailed the teacher and principal surveys to 179 schools. Of the 331 principals
invited to complete the survey in the 179 schools, 260 (157 principals and 103 assistant
principals) returned a completed survey, for a response rate of 78.5%. We sent surveys to
318
all teachers (6,832) in the 179 schools. Teachers returned 4,491 surveys from 43 districts
and 158 schools. The response rate was 65.7%.
We mailed the surveys in bulk to individual schools to the attention of the
principal. Typically teachers completed surveys during a staff meeting. A blank, sealable
envelope accompanied each survey to help ensure confidentiality. In a few cases, district
administrators requested that we mail surveys to the district office for distribution. Each
survey packet contained:
 A cover letter to the principal
 A sheet of instructions for administering the surveys
 A teacher survey for every teacher
 A principal survey for every principal and assistant principal
 A sealable envelope for every teacher and principal
 A project description for every teacher and principal
 Postage-paid, preaddressed envelopes for returning the surveys.
If we did not receive completed surveys within three to four weeks after our
mailing, we telephoned and e-mailed the principal to inquire about the surveys. When a
principal reported that the surveys had not arrived, we sent a second packet. We
attempted to get in touch with unresponsive schools no fewer than four times. In a few
cases, principals opted out of the study after receiving the surveys.
The University of Minnesota‘s Office of Measurement Services formatted and
printed the teacher survey and scanned the surveys upon return. They gave back the
scanned surveys and a data base. As part of data cleaning, we identified cases missing all
or most of the data in the data file and examined the paper survey. In almost all cases, the
data were indeed missing. Only a very few could not be scanned, because the teacher had
completed the survey in red pen or with check marks. We entered those cases manually.
Project staff entered the returned principal survey responses manually into an SPSS file.
Staff randomly selected five percent of the principal survey returns, entered the data gain
and compared it to the first entry. They detected a less than one percent error rate. Of
course, they resolved the discrepancies. When we ran a similar quality control check of
the Round Two principal survey data entry, we detected an eight percent error rate.
Different staff members then re-entered all the data, compared the two sets and resolved
all conflicts. Rechecking the new file with 10% of the cases, we found less than a 1%
error rate.
Round Two
For Round Two, we collaboratively developed a revised 131-item teacher survey
and a 105-item principal survey. We used identical items from the Round One surveys
when we wanted repeat measures, such as in the case of a factor analysis. Items from the
Round One survey were dropped for reasons of economy when an item had little
variation in its response spread, so that we could add new items for deeper inquiries that
had arisen from our first round of data analysis Again, the teacher survey was an eightpage optical scan booklet with glued bindings, and the principal survey was an eightpage, saddle stitched paper-and-pencil booklet.
319
We mailed the surveys to 177 schools with a total teacher population of 7,075.
Teachers returned 3,900 surveys from 134 schools in 40 districts for a response rate of
55%. As in Round One, the teachers completed the surveys anonymously, with each
survey placed by each respondent into a sealable envelope. The schools collected and
returned the surveys. Three hundred fifty-one principals returned 211 surveys from 122
schools in 40 districts for a response rate of 60%.
We divided the Round Two teacher survey into sections with items about the
school, teachers, classroom, school administrator(s) leadership practices, district
leadership, home and school connections, and demographics. We divided the principal
survey into sections with items about the principal‘s areas of expertise, school conditions,
school leadership, district leadership, district policy conditions, state policy and
influences, parents and community, and demographics.
Again, the teacher and principal surveys measured perceptions of both district
leadership practices and district conditions or characteristics. In the surveys, all but one
of the perception or attitudinal variables were measured using six-point scales (from
―strongly disagree‖ to ―strongly agree‖). The one other response set used a five-point
scale from ―strongly disagree‖ to ―strongly agree‖ with a mid-point of ―uncertain.‖ Other
response categories included choices about ―how many‖ (six steps from ―none‖ to ―all‖);
and ―how often‖ (five steps from ―never‖ to ―10 times or more‖ or four steps from ―not at
all‖ to ―every time‖). The principal survey also had some items in which the response
categories were four steps from ―basic‖ to ―highly developed‖; and five steps from ―very
rarely‖ to ―very often.‖
Student achievement
We were guided by five general principles in our research. Principal 4 was ―Make
the best use of existing student achievement data.‖ As we wrote in our proposal to
Wallace, ideally we would have wished to administer the same achievement tests to
students in sampled classrooms of the 180 schools in the study, but in practice that was
not possible. Because of the 2002 NCLB legislation, we assumed that all students within
a state would use the same tests for literacy and mathematics. Thus, we obtained student
achievement data for English and mathematics from scores on the states‘ tests for
measuring Adequate Yearly Progress mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2002.
We downloaded these data from the public, on-line records in each state‘s
department of education website. In trying to fill in gaps in state reporting, rarely did we
find the missing achievement data on district or building websites. A school‘s student
achievement was represented by the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the
proficiency level established by the state on mandated literacy and math tests. If states or
districts tested math or literacy proficiency in more than one grade in elementary or in
secondary schools, we averaged the percentages across the grades within the building
level, resulting in a single achievement score for each school. We began by assembling
district and building proficiency data for 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. Over the
subsequent years of the study, as annual testing data became available, we added it to the
320
student achievement data base. And over the years from 2002-03 through 2006-07, data
across the states were more complete and the state department websites easier to
navigate. Particularly in the first year or two of our work, the availability of data for all
schools in all districts in all states was uneven.
321
Interviews
Districts and schools
We collected three rounds of site-visit data from schools and districts. These
occurred in years two, three, and five of the study. Two districts in each of the nine states
had agreed to be site visit districts. Typically we visited two buildings (one elementary
and one middle school or high school per district), but in two of the small districts we
visited three buildings each, which were all the regular buildings in those two districts.
Besides the interviews with teachers and administrators, we also conducted four or five
classroom observations in each building. Thus we had site visit data from 38 schools and
18 districts. The data collection also extended to community members not employed by
the districts.
We developed 10 separate, role-specific interview protocols collaboratively
following numerous discussions about items and language. Even with a written script, we
agreed that the interviews were to be semi-structured and more conversational than
formal. With the interviewee‘s permission, we made an audio recording of the interview.
We later transcribed verbatim all recorded interviews. We designed the district and
school site visits interviews to take from 45 minutes to an hour each. There were four
district level protocols: superintendent and district staff, school board member, business
and community groups, and union leader. There were six building level protocols:
principal and assistant principals, student support professionals, teacher interview (after
observing his or her teaching),312 lead teacher interview, community representative, and
active parents. All four district interview protocols featured the same major categories,
and within each we tailored language and probes to suit the role of the interviewee. The
major district interview categories were:




Policies and leadership
Relationships (for example with their state‘s department of education, school board,
and other external stakeholders)
Political culture and collaboration
Capacity building (developing district leaders, school leaders, and teachers).
Compared with the district interviews, the six school-level interviews were more
varied, but all had all or most of the following interview categories:




State influence
District influence/leadership
School leadership (distribution, development, etc.)
Curriculum and pedagogy
312
The interview protocol for observed teachers was a bit more narrowly focused than many of the others.
With observed teachers, the focus was on specific activities during the lessons; general approaches to
pedagogy; the role of the principal as well as other leaders within the school, district, and state on
pedagogy; curricular and pedagogical decision making in the school; professional development; and
student learning.
322





School culture
Community (interaction, culture, support, etc.)
Teacher leadership
Professional development
Leadership teams.
Typically, the site-visit teams were composed of four members and often included
staff from both the University of Minnesota and the University of Toronto. Teams usually
were made up of senior researchers, staff, and graduate students. The typical site visit
required three working days in the schools and district offices.
In Round One, the number of interviews conducted in the 38 schools ranged from
4 to 13, the mean was 9, the median 9, and the mode 8. The number of interviews
conducted at the district level ranged from 4 to 21, the mean was 9, the median 8, and
there were multiple modes. More accurately, 10 of the 18 districts had 8 or fewer
interviews. The two outliers of 18 and 21 interviews distort the mean. In total, in the first
round of site visits, we collected 166 district interviews and 342 school interviews for a
total of 508 interviews.
The second round of site visits was a smaller undertaking. At the school level we
decided to interview just principals (and not teachers, support professionals, or assistant
principals). We interviewed 28 principals in 28 buildings in 12 districts in 6 states (as
well, one assistant principal was interviewed as were one lead teacher and one Title I
teacher). In total, in the second round of site visits, we collected 83 district interviews and
32 school interviews for a total of 115 interviews.
The third and final round of interviews was a larger undertaking than the second
round. For Round Three, we replaced three schools, one each in three different districts.
The number of district offices interviews ranged from 0 to 7; in the 17 districts with
district interviews the range was from 2 to 7. The mean was 3, and the median and mode
were 2. In the third round of site visits, we collected 55 district interviews and 207 school
interviews for a total of 262 interviews. The total number of building and district site visit
interviews for the project was 885.
Coding district and building interviews
In our response to the RFP, we proposed we would produce a standardized coding
scheme and code the transcribed school and district interviews, assembling them into a
single, qualitative data base. Using NVivo, we coded the 508 interviews from the first
round of site visits. Even though we coded all interview transcripts, each original
transcript remained available as individual Word files. We wrote in our proposal that the
coding system, given the scope of the study, would necessarily classify the interview data
in rather broad categories because of the number of interviews and the number of coders.
From our proposal to Wallace and the literature review that accompanied it grew the
interview protocols, and from the interview protocols grew the major components of the
coding scheme. Construction of the coding scheme was more conceptual as opposed to
emergent, that is, it did not grow out of an examination or analysis of the resultant
323
interview transcripts per se. Instead, we developed the coding framework a priori to
encompass the majority of interview topics. In order to increase inter-rater reliability, we
piloted the coding scheme with small, randomly selected sections of interview transcripts.
When we finished coding, we compared our various codings and discussed discrepancies.
Based on those conversations, the coding scheme was refined. After a long period of
collaborative development, we finalized the coding scheme.
In general the coding scheme was designed to capture two things, an agent and a
topic area around which that agent is acting. In major outline, the coding framework
contained:
Topic
Curriculum and instruction
Professional development
Accountability
Resources
Climate
Decision making and planning
Collaboration
Student learning outcomes
Organizational structures
Leadership
Communication
Miscellaneous
Agent
State-General (Indefinite agent)
State-Professional Organizations
Federal-General (policy, initiatives)
District-General (Indefinite agent)
District-Staff
District-School Board
District-Professional Organizations
School-General (Indefinite agent)
School-Principal or Assistant principal
School-Teacher
School-Other
Classroom-Self
Classroom-Students
Classroom-Other
Community-Parents
Community-Other
Attributes
State ID (9 sub-codes)
District site ID (18 sub-codes)
District size (large, medium, low)
District poverty (high, medium, low)
District diversity (high, medium, low)
324
District location (urban, suburban, rural)
School site ID
School level (elementary, middle school, high school)
School poverty (high, medium, low)
School diversity (high, medium, low)
School size (student population)
Interviewee role district (superintendent, board member, staff,
parent representative, community stakeholder)
Interviewee role school (principal or assistant principal, teacher,
teacher leader, other staff, parent representative)
Interviewee gender
Interviewee role experience (0-2 years, 3-5, 6-10, 11+)
Interviewee site experience (0-2 years, 3-5, 6-10, 11+)
Site visit date (site visit 1, 2, or 3)
Document type (district, school, research memo).
With the coding scheme came a coding manual that contained the major codes,
coding guidelines, definitions, and the coding format. Those researchers and staff who
would undertake the coding of the 508 interviews spent considerable effort on training
themselves in the intricacies of the system and the mysteries of the NVivo software.
We transcribed but did not code the interviews from the Round Two site visits.
For Round Three, we again transcribed the interviews, and using NVivo, we coded them
not by the original coding framework, but by the interview protocol questions themselves
(this process affectionately referred to as a ―data dump‖).
State study interviews
In our response to the Wallace RFP, we proposed to develop a ―policy map‖ for
each state based on interviews with key informants in order to develop a stable
understanding of the policy dynamics that are related to efforts to change leadership for
student achievement. We developed an open-ended interview protocol that was
appropriate for an elite population. The main topics covered were: 1) the respondent‘s
perceptions of the major state-level policy initiatives of importance over the last few
years (allowing the respondent to determine the starting year/policy); 2) specific policy
initiatives in two arenas: accountability and promoting school leadership; 3) a discussion
of the policy initiators and actors, and their stakes and stands on major policy initiatives;
and 4) their comments about the way in which groups and individuals work together or
separately to exercise influence over educational policy.
We selected interview participants who would, cumulatively, yield a
comprehensive set of perspectives on state-level education policy and policymaking. The
interviewees included congressional representatives, commissioners of education, chairs
of state boards of education, teacher and administrative union leaders, faculty members at
schools of education, leaders of foundations related to education, and business leaders
engaged in state education initiatives. We sent potential respondents letters of invitation
and followed up with telephone calls to schedule telephone interviews.
325
Senior project staff interviewed from eight to 12 individuals by telephone in each
state. Interviews lasted an hour or more, were recorded with the interviewee‘s
permission, and later transcribed. Only one of the interviewees declined to be taped.
From the nine states in the achieved sample we had 83 interviews (as well, we had 12
interviews from the two states we lost). We conducted the interviews in 2004 and 2005
with a final interview in January 2006.
Coding state study interviews
The coding scheme we developed for the state interviews was less complex than
the scheme for district and school interviews. Again, we wanted a standardized coding
system that would classify the interview data in rather broad categories. And again, the
coding scheme closely reflected the interview protocol. In major outline, the coding
framework contained:
Interview topic
Organizational school improvement
Student learning
Accountability
Enhancement of professional development/
Teacher capacity and leadership
Non-specific education policy or history (general)
Context and actions
Goals
Current status
Motivations for policy
Strategies for implementation and enactment
Explanatory factors
Collaboration
Historical context.
There was a second round of state interviews in June, July, and August of 2008. A
single staff member conducted two or three interviews per state (including in one of the states
that we lost) for a total of 29 interviews. All interviewees were officials in their state‘s
department of education and had not been interviewed in the first round of interviews.
Classroom Observation
Classroom observations were part of the data collection during the district site
visits in rounds one and three. The task was to observe instruction in literacy (reading or
language arts) and mathematics, determine the kinds and frequencies of particular
instructional strategies teachers used, and note classroom conditions. The purposes of the
observations were to gain an understanding of the instructional activities in the schools,
which should assist us to better place the student achievement outcomes within a context;
provide some corroboration for the claims made by the various district and building
interviewees about the teaching and learning conditions in the school; and provide a basis
for discussion during the teacher interviews that would follow the observations. We
developed a structured observation protocol to collect this data.
326
On most site visit teams, all team members individually observed one or more
teachers, as well as conducted interviews. We trained ourselves as observers to reliably
document instruction in the lessons we observed based on our modification of
Newmann‘s assessment of authentic instruction.313 We recorded what we saw and heard
on an observation form that included two main sections: 1) basic information about the
context, details of the lesson, how class time was used, how students were organized for
instruction and learning, the kinds of technology used during the lesson, and a description
of any positive or negative features in the classroom; and 2) assessments of instruction
using four of Newmann's five standards of authentic instruction: higher order thinking,
deep knowledge, substantive conversation, and connection to the world beyond the
classroom. We completed the classroom observation forms during or soon after the
observation period but did not show them to the teachers. Except for the observers‘ filled
out observation protocol, we made no recording of any sort of the classrooms.
In the typical site visit, we observed four or five literacy or math classes per
school in classrooms at all grade levels, but we preferred grades 3 or 4, 5, 8, and 10, the
typical grades in which students take state-wide AYP examinations. We observed
teachers during one instructional period usually lasting from 30 to 55 minutes and
conducted the interview with the teacher, lasting about a half hour, as soon as possible
after the lesson.
We did not sample or recruit teachers for our observations. Rather, we left the
choice and persuasion of teachers to the principals or their assistants who were
coordinating arrangements and scheduling for our visit to the schools. Both by e-mail and
telephone, we discussed our preferences for numbers, subjects, and grades. In Round
One, we returned with 145 classroom observations. For the Round Three observations,
we modified our observation protocol somewhat. The major change was the addition of a
one-page checklist requiring the observer to check yes or no to 24 items having to do
with classroom management and use of instructional strategies. In Round Three, we
returned with 167 classroom observations, and a project total of 312 classroom
observations.
313
Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G. & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and
assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, pp.
86-93.
327
Appendix B
Rotated Component Matrix Data for Section 1.5
Survey Item
4-1 My school administrator develops and atmosphere of caring and
trust.
4-3 My school administrator creates consensus around purposes of our
district mission.
4-6 My school administrator is effective in building community
support for the school's improvement efforts.
4-7 My school administrator promotes leadership development among
teachers.
4-8 My school administrator models a high level of professional
practice.
4-9 My school administrator ensures wide participation in decisions
about school improvement.
4-10 My school administrator clearly defines standards for
instructional practices.
4-24 When teachers are struggling, our principal provides support for
them.
4-25 Our principal ensures that all students get high quality teachers.
4-27 In general, I believe my principal's motives and intentions are
good.
4-13 How often in this school year has your school administrator
discussed instructional issues with you?
4-14 How often in this school year has your school administrator
encouraged collaborative work among staff?
4-15 How often in this school year has your school administrator
provided or located resources to help staff improve their teaching?
4-16 How often in this school year has your school administrator
observed your classroom instruction?
4-17 How often in this school year has your school administrator
encouraged data use in planning for individual student needs?
4-18 How often in this school year has your school administrator
attended teacher planning meetings?
4-21 How often in this school year has your school administrator given
you specific ideas for how to improve your instruction?
Component
1
2
.857
.161
.832
.243
.841
.224
.839
.279
.869
.213
.818
.251
.768
.351
.741
.259
.705
.247
.756
.112
.253
.761
.288
.699
.352
.717
.103
.671
.155
.772
.183
.691
.159
.640
328
Appendix C
Data from Section 1.6
Table C1.6.1
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by Diversity
ANOVA
Diversity Level Pairwise
Contrasts†
Low
(A)
Medium
(B)
High
(C)
B>C
A>C
B>C
A>C
F
p
10.80
<.001
.23
.797
11.65
<.001
4.97
.007
A>B
5 Shared Norms
40.20
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
6 Teachers Perceptions of Parent Influence
38.75
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
7 Principal as Trusted Colleague
11.58
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
8 Focused Instruction
44.21
<.001
A>B
B>C
A>C
9 Teacher ratings of school climate
9.69
<.001
B>C
A>C
10 Teacher ratings of school openness to
parents
11 Teacher ratings of district support
4.32
.015
3.14
.045
1 Parent Teacher Shared Leadership
2 Principal as Instructional Leader
3 Shared Leadership Within the School
4 Collective Responsibility
A>B
(p=.06)
A>B
(p=.06)
A>C
A>C
B>C
Source: 1 – 8 Teacher Survey Round One; 9 – 11 Teacher Survey Round Two
†
For the planned pairwise contrasts among the means, the comparisons shown represent two means
significantly different from each other at p < .05, t-test two-tailed.
329
Table C1.6.2
Summary Table of Significant Main Effects for Principal Leadership Variables for Each
Context Variable for Surveyed Principals Second Round*
Building Size
Building Level
Urbanicity
District Size
Diversity
Leadership Variables
Poverty
Context Variables
Principal self-rating on shared-leadership skills
Principal self-rating on improvement-planning focus
X
Principal rating of district school-improvement focus
X
Principal rating of district shared-leadership skills
X
District policies to support organizational learning
X
District focus on data-based decision making
X
X
Source: Principal Survey Round Two.
* X indicates a significant main effect at p < .05 for that leadership variable (row) on that context variable
(column).
330
Table C1.6.3
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by Diversity
Principal self-rating on shared-leadership
skills
Principal self-rating on improvement-planning
focus
Principal rating of district school-improvement
focus
Principal rating of district shared-leadership
skills
District policies to support organizational
learning
District focus on data-based decision making
ANOVA
Diversity Level Pairwise
Contrasts†
F
Low
(A)
p
1.60
.205
5.25
.006
B>A
3.42
.035
B>A
.78
.461
1.27
.283
3.88
.022
Medium
(B)
High
(C)
C>A
B>A
Source: Principal Survey Round Two.
†
For the planned pairwise contrasts among the means, the comparisons shown represent two means
significantly different from each other at p < .05, t-test two-tailed.
Table C1.6.4
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by District Size
ANOVA
F
Principal self-rating on shared-leadership
skills
Principal self-rating on improvement-planning
focus
Principal rating of district school-improvement
focus
Principal rating of district shared-leadership
skills
District policies to support organizational
learning
District focus on data-based decision making
p
2.69
.070
.34
.713
2.36
.097
9.07
<.001
8.04
<.001
.45
.641
District Size Pairwise
Contrasts†
Small
(A)
Medium
(B)
Large
(C)
A>C
A>B
A>C
Source: Principal Survey Round Two
†
For the planned pairwise contrasts among the means, the comparisons shown represent two means
significantly different from each other at p < .05, t-test two-tailed.
331
Table C1.6.5
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by Urbanicity
ANOVA
F
p
Urbanicity Level Pairwise
Contrasts†
Rural
(A)
Large
town
(B)
Suburban Urban
(D)
(C)
1 Parent-teacher shared leadership
1.99
.113
2 Principal as instructional leader
3.94
.008
3 Shared leadership within the
school
3.93
.008
4 Collective responsibility
1.63
.179
34.29
<.001
6 Teachers perceptions of parent
influence
2.82
.037
C>B
(p = .057)
7 Principal as trusted colleague
3.08
.026
C>D
8 Focused instruction
25.63
<.001
9 Teacher ratings of school climate
2.92
.035
1.12
.342
5.55
.001
5 Shared norms
10 Teacher ratings of school
openness to parents
11 Teacher ratings of district
support
C>D
D>A
A>B
A>B
C>B
C>B
C>D
C>D
A>D
A>D
A>C
A>B
D>B
A>C
Source: 1 – 8 Teacher Survey Round One; 9 – 11 Teacher Survey Round Two.
†
For the planned pairwise contrasts among the means, the comparisons shown represent two means
significantly different from each other at p < .05, t-test two-tailed.
332
Table C1.6.6
One-Way Analyses of Variance for Leadership Variables by School Size
School Size Pairwise Contrasts†
School Size in Quintiles
ANOVA
F
1 Parent-teacher shared
leadership
2 Principal as instructional
leader
3 Shared leadership within the
school
p
1st
(A)
2nd
(B)
3rd
(C)
4th
(D)
19.87
<.001
A>E
B>E
C>E
D>E
39.95
<.001
A>E
B>E
C>E
D>E
3.97
.003
4 Collective responsibility
32.74
<.001
A>B
A>D
A>D
A>E
B>D
B>E
5 Shared norms
43.19
<.001
A>E
B>E
C>D
C>E
C>D
C>E
2.73
.028
7 Principal as trusted colleague
30.15
<.001
8 Focused instruction
4.16
.002
17.61
<.001
A>E
B>E
C>E
D>E
13.29
<.001
A>E
B>E
C>E
D>E
5.37
<.001
C>E
D>E
6 Teachers perceptions of
parent influence
9 Teacher ratings of school
climate
10 Teacher ratings of school
openness to parents
11 Teacher ratings of district
support
5th
(E)
D>E
D>E
(D > E
p=.08)
A>E
B>E
(C > D
p=.06)
C>E
(C > E
p=.06)
D>E
D>E
Source: 1 – 8 Teacher Survey Round One; 9 – 11 Teacher Survey Round Two.
†
For these post hoc contrasts among the means, the comparisons shown represent two means significantly
different from each other at p < .05, Bonferroni t-test two-tailed.
333
About the Authors
Kyla Wahlstrom is Director of the Center for Applied Research and Educational
Improvement (CAREI) in the College of Education and Human Development at the
University of Minnesota. Her research interests include instructional reform initiatives,
educational leadership, and the impact of district-wide policies on teaching and learning.
She has been a teacher and principal, and is the author of numerous book chapters,
journal articles, and over 50 technical reports used by educational leaders to shape policy
decisions.
Karen Seashore Louis is Regents Professor and the Robert H. Beck Chair in the College
of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota, and a past vicepresident for Division A of the American Educational Research Association. Her research
focuses on schools as workplaces, school improvement and reform, and her most recent
book (with Sharon D. Kruse) is Building Strong School Cultures: A Guide to Leading
Change (2009). She received the Roald F. Campbell Lifetime Achievement Award from
the University Council for Educational Administration in 2009.
Kenneth Leithwood is Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at
OISE/University of Toronto. His research and writing about school leadership,
educational policy and organizational change is widely known and respected by
educators throughout the English-speaking world. Dr. Leithwood has published more
than 70 refereed journal articles and authored or edited two-dozen books.
Stephen Anderson is an Associate Professor in the Educational Administration Program,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. His research and
publication activities focus on education policy and program change, school
improvement, in-service teacher development, and education leadership in Canada, the
United States, East Africa, Pakistan, and Chile. His recent work focuses on the school
district role in educational change and on the sustainability of school improvement.
334
The Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement (CAREI)
at the University of Minnesota links empirical
research to real-world applications for educational
leaders in Minnesota and across the United States.
To do so, CAREI conducts comprehensive studies
that provide information about challenges confronting
schools and practices leading to educational
improvement.
For information on our technical reports and
resources, please visit our Web site:
www.cehd.umn.edu/CAREI/
University of Minnesota
Center for Applied Research
and Educational Improvement
College of Education
and Human Development
1954 Buford Ave., Suite 425
St. Paul, MN 55108-1062
Tel: 612-624-0300
Fax: 612-625-3086
www.cehd.umn.edu/CAREI/
University of Toronto
Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education
252 Bloor St. West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6
Tel: 416-978-2011
Fax: 416-926-4752
The Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education at the University of Toronto
(OISE/UT)
is the largest professional school of education in
Canada and among the largest in the world. It offers
initial teacher education, continuing education, and
graduate programs, all sustained by faculty who are
involved in research across the spectrum of issues
connected with learning.
Please visit our Web site for more information:
www.oise.utoronto.ca
The Wallace Foundation
The Wallace Foundation seeks to support and share
effective ideas and practices that expand learning
and enrichment opportunities for all people. Its three
current objectives are:
z Strengthen education leadership to improve
student achievement
The Wallace Foundation
z Enhance out-of-school learning opportunities
5 Penn Plaza, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10001
z Expand participation in arts and culture
www.oise.utoronto.ca
Tel: 212-251-9700
Fax: 212-679-6990
www.wallacefoundation.org
For more information and research on these and
other related topics, please visit our Knowledge
Center:
www.wallacefoundation.org.
3